Live data from Hacker News

Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

technologyreview.com

11–20 of 117 posts

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#11
post #2

The article states "Weev and a fellow hacker who originally uncovered AT&T’s mistake and collected the e-mails didn’t ask the company for permission to access the Web addresses that shared iPad users’ private information" I really don't see how this argument holds up. From a technical point of view the very nature of HTTP includes asking for permission. You send a request "Please can I see the information at this URL…

>> required visiting an AT&T web address with a particular – and easy to guess – code tagged onto the end. How is this different than a password?

Someone can provide you with a clickable link, as in for instance this submission, and you would never even know that the content you are accessing is supposed to be "protected".

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> required visiting an AT&T web address with a particular – and easy to guess – code tagged onto the end. How is this different than a password?

Someone can provide you with a clickable link, as in for instance this submission, and you would never even know that the content you are accessing is supposed to be "protected".

I see your point, but how does this apply to this case?

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#14
From my understanding all you had to do was pass the ICC-ID to a script on AT&T's servers to get back the user data. I can see the court interpreting the ICC-ID as a form of access control since you'd have to guess them similarly to passwords.

What isn't quite clear to me is what they did with this data. It seems they reported the hole to AT&T who then fixed it. That's good. It also seems they passed the data off to reporters, which may be bad for their case. It seems like they acted, at least mostly, responsibly.

Assuming the data was never released to the public I don't think they should be prosecuting Auernheimer. That said, it does seem like they have a case based on the wording of the law.

It's a very real possibility that he's facing jail time, especially when you consider the volume of data. He's charged with breaking 18 USC § 1028A (aggravated ID theft laws) which carries a mandatory minimum of 2 years. Federal judges have some control over this but generally stick with sentencing guidelines. He could fight it and win, get them to reduce the charges, or do some serious work for the gov and hope the judge goes easy on him.

Note: I was convicted of violating 18 USC § 1028A (among other laws) so I have personal experience with this law, sentencing guidelines, and judge discretion but IANAL.

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#15
post #4
post #2

The article states "Weev and a fellow hacker who originally uncovered AT&T’s mistake and collected the e-mails didn’t ask the company for permission to access the Web addresses that shared iPad users’ private information" I really don't see how this argument holds up. From a technical point of view the very nature of HTTP includes asking for permission. You send a request "Please can I see the information at this URL…

> From a technical point of view the very nature of HTTP includes asking for permission. A web server isn't an agent of the company and has no capacity to grant or deny permission. Think of it as a security system you install in your home. Now, if the security system is malfunctioning and you notice that it is malfunctioning ... do you call up the owner and let them know or do you go inside and look through their stu…

On the other hand, if Weev is sentenced: what does that mean for such things as Google's security flaw bounty?

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> required visiting an AT&T web address with a particular – and easy to guess – code tagged onto the end. How is this different than a password?

Someone can provide you with a clickable link, as in for instance this submission, and you would never even know that the content you are accessing is supposed to be "protected".

You can format a link to be something like:

http://username:password@members.example.com

I wouldn't say that means the account in question is unprotected.

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#17
How about this. What if we have another section on websites called something like 'Submit a bug' next to 'About,' 'Contact Us' etc.

If more and more sites make it easier to report these things to them, hopefully either the error will be fixed or if it is being ignored, the "hacker" will have some kind of proof to claim that he tried to tell the bank to fix their door.

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#18
post #4
post #2

The article states "Weev and a fellow hacker who originally uncovered AT&T’s mistake and collected the e-mails didn’t ask the company for permission to access the Web addresses that shared iPad users’ private information" I really don't see how this argument holds up. From a technical point of view the very nature of HTTP includes asking for permission. You send a request "Please can I see the information at this URL…

> From a technical point of view the very nature of HTTP includes asking for permission. A web server isn't an agent of the company and has no capacity to grant or deny permission. Think of it as a security system you install in your home. Now, if the security system is malfunctioning and you notice that it is malfunctioning ... do you call up the owner and let them know or do you go inside and look through their stu…

As an information security professional, I see two different issues at play here. First, they got access. They were granted access by the admin who did not lock down the server. I am not a lawyer, but I see the unauthenticated web server, no matter how much of a mistake, as being implicit permission to access the site. A house, by default, implies privacy. A web server is more of a business in this metaphor. If the door is open and the lights are on, it's implied you can come in and look around. Machines accessible over the web are by default open to everyone unless permission is revoked. The "unauthorized access" charge, in my opinion, should be struck down. When a site is made accessible from the unauthenticated Internet an admin implicitly granting you permission to visit the site.

The second issue at play is the fact that the guy apparently collected some email conversations to use as proof. Using my business metaphor, walking into a closed business that to a layman appears open is a simple mistake. Anyone could reasonably assume the business is open. However, collecting their merchandise even just to prove they forgot to lock up would still be stealing. In this situation, it's unauthorized copying. Most reasonable people would consider this to be unacceptable.

The second situation is muddied a bit further by my wording "most". Websites accessible when unauthenticated are able to be scraped easily. What if the Googlebot crawled the site and collected the information due to a poor robots.txt? What if you walked into the business and tried some free samples (unauthenticated websites are implicitly free samples)? Data privacy comes into play on this one though, and I would argue that any reasonable person would understand these as private communications. While they are accessible to view, any reasonable person would understand it is unethical to read them and unacceptable to copy them.

The fatal flaw of the defendant was copying the emails. Up to that point, he was completely within reasonable practice in my opinion. Here's a takeaway for any startups: security isn't a joke. It's a career ender, it's a business ender, and it could be a career ender for your customers who trusted you. You hire the best programmers, but budget a little aside for an external penetration test, and take the results seriously. Don't lose your company and your reputation because of a caffeine-fueled oversight.

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#19
post #7
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A web server isn't an agent of the company and has no capacity to grant or deny permission. A web server certainly can grant or deny permission, but it seems that this one didn't.

That is perhaps not the same as "capacity" in the legal sense. Is a web-server legally competent?

The blame would rest on the admin who set the permissions. You can't blame a lock for not being locked, but you can blame the night watchman for not locking it. This doesn't remove blame from the intruder though.

Re: Jail Looms for Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone can provide you with a clickable link, as in for instance this submission, and you would never even know that the content you are accessing is supposed to be "protected".

You can format a link to be something like: http://username:password@members.example.com I wouldn't say that means the account in question is unprotected.

If you are going to nitpick, I will say that this is a feature that relies on browser-support. It's not fundamental to the web. Query-strings however by definition needs to be supported on the server-side. They are a part of the web. They are required for the web to work.

Why is "browser-support" relevant? Your example is not supported in MSIE. I also thought it was removed from Chrome (in the name of "simplicity"), but I may be wrong.

A link with query-strings is guaranteed to work for everyone.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/834489

Post reply on HN