561–570 of 705 posts
Quote from the St Louis Post Dispatch article is even more groan-worthy: "In the letter to teachers, Education Commissioner Margie Vandeven said “an individual took the records of at least three educators, unencrypted the source code from the webpage, and viewed the social security number (SSN) of those specific educators.” I guess webpages are kinda like encryption for idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is 100% the correct analogy.
But this is assuming that the server has more agency than it does. Servers don't have minds and they don't make authorization decisions. This is more like someone giving you key to a filing cabinet in order to retrieve some documents and while you're there you snoop on the ones next to yours. Is this system more trusting of people than it should be? Probably. Does that mean you're allowed to snoop on other people's d…
Just like the IRS admin assistant in the example was, the agent to cause the transfer. The filing cabinet/server is not the agent, simply the repository responding to the system and practices in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the response, as it pertains to you, is going to be the same for incompetence or malfeasance in a large number of organizations. Consider what the average self-interested politician would do if you uncovered a corruption problem in their administration they did not know about. Are they going to fix the problem, reward you, and risk losing the next election beneath an avalanche of attack ads? Or ar…
> I remember one case where the red team was hired by the agency involved explicitly to perform pentesting, and when they found a vulnerability the government pressed charges! If the case you’re remembering is the one where the red team assumed (without asking) that physically breaking into the courthouse at night was “in scope” of their engagement, I’m of the opinion the short-sightedness there was not the agency… h…
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/01/iowa-prosecutors-drop-ch...
They did fail to verify that law enforcement was aware (the client specifically asked them not to) and they seem to have misunderstood the building's ownership structure. The end result was that they fulfilled their contract and were arrested for it after encountering one idiot with power, after which the local politicians piled on in order not to look weak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of at least one legitimate reason to block the dev console. There are these posts I've seen over the years that say to "press the hotkey to open the Javascript console, and paste this Javascript blob" (obviously in much more persuading terms) to get a discount on RayBands or something. Disabling it prevents a possible information leak vector.
I've never seen one in the wild, thought it would be interesting to see what they want you to paste into the console, probably something to transmit them your session token. I know Facebook has a huge warning about it when you open devtools on their site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, this is the top comment and it has led to a lengthy discussion about the ethics of altering a url to retrieve a resource you should not have access to. Which is a fascinating discussion, but has nothing to do with the case at hand which is where the underlying html on a publicly accessible search result page contained SSNs of the teachers returned in the search. All the analogies about ‘it’s like askin…
I am now questioning the wisdom of having shared this story, and I apologize for derailing the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno, this seems pretty normal. Just today news broke that in Germany some guy who found a flaw in a web-shop backend leaking the data of hundreds of thousands of people got raided, because the operator reported him to the police - and somehow both police and state attorney found it wise to prosecute him instead of referring the case to the GDPR officer to fine the operator. It's pretty obvious that when you find…
Perhaps many people are spoiled and blinded by the SV megacorp culture of (usually) taking in bug reports and fixing them and handing out recognition/money. It would be nice if everyone accepted responsible disclosure, but that's not going to be the case until some legislation comes along to require it in the absence of malice.
Something shouldn't have to be literally illegal to be considered shitty behavior. (Of course, people are often incentivised to be shitty, which is why legislation should also be applied to the issue)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one said anything about legality. I'm still going to yell at you to gtfo and never come back again, and I don't see why it would be surprising that I would. Let's drop the metaphor. The original story was that someone accessed a number of documents they weren't supposed to but technically could, and the question was whether or not that it was reasonable that the owners of the documents were upset with that. I argu…
The only person to be upset at is the one who didn't put access control on the site. That was a publically available endpoint. The better analogy is putting something private on a public bulletin board and being mad if someone read something you didn't want them to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked for a NYC government vendor who, unfortunately, outsourced a huge chunk of dev work abroad due to low costs (and I assume the manager's shady relationships with outsourcers), the amount of bugs and blatant negligence I observed in the delivered code was staggering. Even with said mistakes the manager/project managers were more concerned with getting the project out the door, so once delievered, they'd s…
I can understand outsourcing development, but I suspect part of the problem with outsourcing the development is that QA of the product is done by the same vendor. "We investigated ourselves and found ourselves clear of any wrongdoing."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, you don't need any other supporting information and you don't have to bring political parties into it. If a politician is prosecuting a reporter for embarrassing the state - not for committing a crime - they are a fascist.
i don’t think either of you is correct. there are many tenets of fascism, and prosecuting (or straight up imprisoning) journalists is a common occurance in socialist and capitalist countries. by your definition a lot of capitalist and socialist countries around the world are fascist, which is false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, to go with the analogy more: I leave my door unlocked because I'm expecting someone. There's a knock at my door and I yell "Come in" without looking at who is at the door. Not an unreasonable thing, happens all the time. When I finally look, I find you in my house, going through all of my things, for no reason other than you wanted to gain insight on my financial situation. Do I bear responsibility for letting…
You let me in knowing exactly who I was. You showed me some stuff I wanted to see, but sitting right next to it, out in the open, was stuff you didn't want me to see. All I had to do was look somewhere other than where you were pointing, and I did that. And then you got mad at me for looking at the stuff and called the police.
The way you phrase this makes it seem like accessing the documents was a mistake. Maybe the first one was, but I think the thing you are missing about the OP's story is that the behavior was repeated. I think the first instance was arguably okay. But subsequent access with the knowledge that what they were accessing was not intended for them is in my eyes beyond a mere misunderstanding.
You also have to remember that having physical or digital access to a thing is not the same as having permission to view the thing. For example, if a "Top Secret" document is delivered to your house with your name and address attached to it, if you read it without the appropriate clearance you will still be in trouble. The legality of such a thing is well established in that case, but the principle is the same: even though you have access to a thing and all you have to do is move your eyes in some direction to see it, the act of seeing it is still at minimum an ethical breach (why are you looking at things that you know don't belong to you?).
I guess this is the fundamental philosophical and ethical question: do you believe you are entitled to know any information as long as you have the technical ability to physically or digitally access that information? What if I have medical records on a screen in a room you are in, and all you have to do is move your eyes over to see my most personal info? Are you entitled to read that information because it's visible to you? Or do you think you owe it to others not breach their privacy even though you have the ability to do so? Would you be mad if someone violated your privacy, and then retorted with "well you should have a had implemented some better technology to prevent me from moving my eyes in that direction"? I guess in that scenario you would have to blame yourself and your technological abilities, and not the person violating your privacy.