Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

ian.sh

201–210 of 459 posts

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#201
post #175

Little Bobby Tables strikes again: https://xkcd.com/327/

really feels like SQL should have never been written in such a fundamentally insecure manner, or immediately fixed once it was discovered that it was

SQL was devised far before web apps or the internet were even a thing…

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#202

> We did not want to contact FlyCASS first as it appeared to be operated only by one person... It seems pretty remarkable that airlines are buying such a security sensitive piece of software from a one person shop. If you make it very far into selling any piece of SaaS software to most companies in corporate America, at the absolute minimum they're going to ask you for your SOC2 audit report. SOC2 is pretty damn easy…

The "airlines" that are using something like FlyCASS are themselves smaller operations and typically running on razor thin margins (if not just unprofitable and wishfully thinking that money will suddenly appear and make their business viable). Literally everything on their backend is held together with more duct tape than the average small business. You could be an "airline" by purchasing a couple of older airliners…

I'm curious why a small cargo airline would even need to use the KCM system. If they don't fly passengers, then wouldn't their crew access the aircraft from the cargo ramp (with a SIDA badge) and never need to enter the passenger terminal/sterile area?

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#203
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason why Crowdstrike have access, why MS wasn't allowed to shut them out with Vista was a regulatory decision, one where they argued that somebody needs to do the job of keeping Windows secure in a way that biased Microsoft can't. So, I guess you could have some sort of escrow third party that isn't Crowdstrike or MS to do this "audit"? Or see this for a much better write up: https://stratechery.com/202…

MS could have provided security hooks similar to BPF in Linux, and similar mechanisms with Apple, rather than having Crowdstrike run arbitrary buggy code at the highest privilege level.

Crowdstrike configured Windows to not start if their driver could not run successfully.

That's not the default option for kernel drivers on Windows, so this was an explicit choice on Crowdstrike's part.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that be https://id.me ? It's what the IRS uses.

Apparently Venmo also has a option to look up an image of any person, we could use that too.

I think they (quietly) turned that off after a researcher exposed it earlier this week.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#206
post #18

Hilarious that the entire TSA system is vulnerable to the most basic web programming error that you generally learn to avoid 10 minutes into reading about web programming- and that every decent quality web framework automatically prevents. It is really telling that they try to cover up and deny instead of fix it, but not surprising. That is a natural consequence of authoritarian thinking, which is the entire premise…

It might have been an insanely old application that predates SQL injection being common knowledge (or required to be protected against) and has been forgotten about/poorly maintained.

There are oodles and oodles of apps like this powering our daily lives.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#207
I’m glad they uncovered and reported this but I’d be super reluctant to actually log in using purloined credentials if I were them. As macNchz says elsewhere in this discussion, CISA/TSA/DHS does not appear to make any assurances that they won’t prosecute what appears to be a facial CFAA violation just because someone is doing valid security research.

To be clear, I really hope they don’t, but they are also clearly trying to spin this in a way at odds with the researchers, and I’d hate to be in a position where they want to have leverage over me if I’d done this.

Brave that they did so though and I do think the severity of the vuln warrants this.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#208
If NYTimes or WSJ had any backbone or journalistic integrity, they would write a front page piece on this to fix our agencies from being defensive to bug reports, shed light to the horrid incompetency in these agencies and how there was no oversight to any of this. They would also protect the two individuals as white hat hackers and teach non-technical people that these are good guys. You know, the job of the press.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#209
post #175

Little Bobby Tables strikes again: https://xkcd.com/327/

really feels like SQL should have never been written in such a fundamentally insecure manner, or immediately fixed once it was discovered that it was

SQL in itself is not the weak point in this case (or any of the other cases of a successful SQLi attack). The problem is the treatment of user-controllable input data and using that data as part of a SQL query without properly sanitising/escaping special characters first.

Re: Bypassing airport security via SQL injection

#210
post #153
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, most commercial attestations/certifications contain enough weasel language that the certifier isn't responsible for anything missed (i.e. reasonable effort only). But yes, there are many standards for this (e.g. SOC Type 2 reports). In defense of their utility, the good ones tend to focus on (a) whether a control/policy for a sensitive operation exists at all in the product/company & (b) whether those co…

We're talking about getting a judgement in the court of public opinion not a court of law, and no one is exempt from the former.

Many live in a special labelled class that cannot be criticized
Post reply on HN