You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs
June 9, 2010 2:47 PM   Subscribe

AT&T network security breach exposes 114,000 iPad owners e-mail addresses Another day, another security breach. Except this one is of iPad early adopters' user account information. Turns out a number of prominent people bought 3G iPads. The Schadenfreude, it tingles. Via
posted by mojohand (40 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Eh, this may or may not turn into a substantially interesting thing but for now two links to gawker is kinda thin. -- cortex



 
why schadenfreude?
posted by empath at 2:49 PM on June 9, 2010


Because sometimes I'm not as good a person as I might be.
posted by mojohand at 2:52 PM on June 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Your world, delivered.
posted by boo_radley at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2010 [4 favorites]


Yea, is this joy at the suffering of others directed at AT&T or at iUsers?
posted by polymodus at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2010


So the exploit revealed exactly two things: the iPad 3G's ICC ID and an email address used to setup the AT&T account. The security experts interviewed in the article stated that the ICC IDs do not represent a security problem, and if the disclosure of an email address alone is a security problem for you then, well, you're doing it wrong.

Now, of course, not even that much information should've been obtainable in such an obvious way, but this isn't really all that bad. And this is coming from an iPhone user and hater of AT&T. But I repeat myself.
posted by jedicus at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2010 [5 favorites]


the own blog, it's needed
posted by bonaldi at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2010 [3 favorites]


Also, thin post.


Wafer thin.
posted by fixedgear at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2010 [3 favorites]


These are not "compromised accounts." They were just able to retrieve email addresses associated with specific devices.
posted by sanko at 2:57 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Your world, delivered.

...to hackers.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:57 PM on June 9, 2010


Also, thin post.


Wafer thin.



And no USB port. Or Flash.
posted by chavenet at 2:57 PM on June 9, 2010 [7 favorites]


The subscriber data was obtained by a group calling itself Goatse Security.

*wipes tear from eye* god bless you internets
posted by wcfields at 2:58 PM on June 9, 2010 [10 favorites]


Interesting story, but what a shitty article. They're really doing their best to make this sound like it's Apple's fault, because that's a juicier story. And the breathless tone—it doesn't stop there!—is really a bit much. I feel a tinge of shame every time a Gawker property registers an ad impression from my computer.
posted by Garak at 2:58 PM on June 9, 2010 [4 favorites]


Gawker Media sure has a hate-on for Apple lately; wonder why that is? Has anyone heard anything?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:02 PM on June 9, 2010 [8 favorites]


Apple needs to build its own damn network. AT&T is basically the bumbling henchman to Apple's Lex Luthor.
posted by Spacelegoman at 3:02 PM on June 9, 2010 [7 favorites]


It seems like the main reason this is a problem is that important people have had their e-mail addresses exposed who might have otherwise wanted to keep them secret, like an unlisted phone number.

But in order for Gawker to have determined that the addresses belonged to prominent people such as Rahm Emmanuel or Michael Bloomberg, they would have either have had to crosscheck the addresses, which means that they were already public, or infer whose address it was from the address itself, in which case one could probably guess it with a little bit of work. I mean, in order to determine that ******@weinsteinco.com is Harvey Weinstein, it would have to be something like harvey@weinsteinco.com or something like that. In which case, it wasn't much of a secret at all.
posted by painquale at 3:02 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


MUHAHAHAHA! I HAVE YOUR MEFI MAIL ADDRESSES.


/hack the planet.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:03 PM on June 9, 2010



Gawker Media sure has a hate-on for Apple lately; wonder why that is? Has anyone heard anything?


The journalist hating fascists over at apple asked them for stolen property back.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:04 PM on June 9, 2010


Gawker Media sure has a hate-on for Apple lately; wonder why that is? Has anyone heard anything?

Gizmodo, who is owned by Gawker, wasn't given access to Apple's keynote on Monday, presumably retribution for Gizmodo stealing/buying/obtaining the iPhone 4 prototype.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article.
posted by meowzilla at 3:06 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Interesting story, but what a shitty article. They're really doing their best to make this sound like it's Apple's fault, because that's a juicier story. And the breathless tone—it doesn't stop there!—is really a bit much. I feel a tinge of shame every time a Gawker property registers an ad impression from my computer.

It's Gawker. Of course they try to fuck Apple and spread FUD. When Apple released their own report on their suppliers with the fuckups they fixed all Gawker could take away from it was "CHILD LABOR! CHILD LABOR! APPLE IS EVIL! CHILD LABOR"
posted by Talez at 3:06 PM on June 9, 2010


*woosh*
*woosh*
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on June 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


"Gawker Media sure has a hate-on for Apple lately; wonder why that is? Has anyone heard anything?"

Because any post with 'Apple' in the title automatically gets an extra power of ten in the number of pageviews.
posted by mullingitover at 3:07 PM on June 9, 2010




Steve Jobs should shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders.
posted by mazola at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I would bet that knowing an individual's ICC ID (SIM card ID) would lead to other potential security issues for some individuals.
posted by zippy at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2010


Gawker Media sure has a hate-on for Apple lately; wonder why that is? Has anyone heard anything?

It's funny, because before the iPhone flap, they were probably the most pro-Apple blog that didn't have "Apple" or "Mac" in the name. I swear, Gizmodo had three full days with nothing but iPad columns when it was released.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:10 PM on June 9, 2010


Gawker, maybe take a gap year and go backpacking in Europe or something. Go surf in Australia. Apple broke up with you and you need to get over it. Driving by her house every night at 1 AM and throwing rocks at her window and then sitting on the curb and crying just isn't cool.
posted by GuyZero at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2010 [20 favorites]


Seems like these days Apple is to Gizmodo as the Democratic party is to FOXNews.
posted by gyc at 3:17 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thin and yawn-worthy.
posted by uraniumwilly at 3:21 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


WIRED is noticeably less gung ho for Apple these days too.
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2010


"The security experts interviewed in the article stated that the ICC IDs do not represent a security problem, and if the disclosure of an email address alone is a security problem for you then, well, you're doing it wrong."
None of these items may be interesting individually, but the relationship between them could be useful, as well as the fact that the data exists at all. To pick a relatively benign but underhanded move, how about targeted advertising from Apple's/ATT's competitors: "Here at FuBarTech, we value privacy. Switch today, and we'll throw in an limited time exclusive $INCENTIVE!"
posted by pwnguin at 3:26 PM on June 9, 2010


I hope the breach didn't allow these guys to escape.
posted by homunculus at 3:32 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Is it just me, or is the redaction in those images of the lists of email addresses kinda weak? The danglers and other stuff make it pretty easy to guess at some of those addresses, and I'm not trying very hard at all.
posted by yiftach at 3:35 PM on June 9, 2010


Calling this AT&T data breach "Apple's worst security breach" is about as accurate as calling the Gawker headline "MetaFilter's most misleading headline."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 3:41 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


What legitimate reason could there be for disliking people that have chosen to purchase a particular type of computer that isn't bullshit platform politics?

Maybe just because they have disposable income? No wait, it's because it's not a Crunchpad where I could compile my own freeper kernel? Either way, kinda weak.
posted by dammitjim at 3:42 PM on June 9, 2010


Goatse Security security is a subsidiary of Goatse Enterprises, makers of the 2-Girls-1-Cup Drinking Device and the Lemon Party Air Freshener.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 3:42 PM on June 9, 2010


Relatedly: yes, iCan.

(This incredible piece of PR puffery actually quotes the CEO of the company that makes the product calling it "magical". Mmmm, journalism.)
posted by chavenet at 3:45 PM on June 9, 2010


Ugh, this, a thousand times over. Flagged as breathless Valleywag clickbait.
posted by NolanRyanHatesMatches at 3:45 PM on June 9, 2010


Breathless? Wait for the post about Lady Gaga's iPad.
posted by GuyZero at 3:51 PM on June 9, 2010


Spacelegoman: "AT&T is basically the bumbling henchman to Apple's Lex Luthor."

[Insert Gene Hackman Joke Here]
posted by brundlefly at 3:52 PM on June 9, 2010


"bullshit platform politics" are fun, inexpensive, you can do them at work, and I won't have anyone giving anyone mess about them.

cf. sneezing, donuts
posted by everichon at 3:54 PM on June 9, 2010


« Older Tenement Goose Farms   |   Microsoft Motherf*ckers Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments