Live data from Hacker News

Leaking URLs to the Clown

rachelbythebay.com

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Leaking URLs to the Clown

#51
post #10

> read some feed containing something relatively private, guess what, they're reading it too Everyone needs to accept the fact there's no such thing as a private URL. There are URLs that can be originally communicated to you privately—through a private channel, that is—but insisting on holding onto some (wrong) belief that we can or should be able to mint URLs that themselves possess some "private" quality goes again…

Nothing is ever truly 100% private, but certain things are "private enough".

A password can be leaked just as well as any URL, particularly if the password needs to be periodically sent to a downstream server to do the feed polling, and hence stored in plaintext.

URLs generally have less protection than a password because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves), but the protection they do have is often enough.

You protect podcast feeds for revenue, not privacy. The negligible loss of revenue you're going to experience if somebody hacks into a feed reader isn't worth inventing a new protocol. You need to protect against abusive sharing of URLs by authorized users anyway, usually by having a system that forces the url to be re-generated when it's getting too many visits, so if one of these databases becomes fully public, the problem is already solved anyway.

Re: Leaking URLs to the Clown

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She expected it to retrieve the URL to her own device, but it also sent it to the company that makes the app. That like if Chrome sent Google a list of all URLs you visit, people would definitely be angry about that.

> That like if Chrome sent Google a list of all URLs you visit, people would definitely be angry about that. I have bad news for you… the general public won’t care. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/microsoft-edge-is-sending-all...

That doesn't prove that people don't care, just that Microsoft doesn't care about people.

Re: Leaking URLs to the Clown

#54
post #26
post #3

Can’t tell if “clown” is an incredible typo in the submission or some comment on the owner of the offending platform, but either way I’m all about it

It's been pretty common (derogatory) slang for "the cloud" for many years in certain circles I am in, so I assume that was the usage hear. The clown emoji is also useful in this regard in SSIDs or strings in programs (breaks all sorts of things that it shouldn't too)

>slang for "the cloud"

Never had heard that but it was obvious from the title.

Cloud quite often is clown-computing, or maybe clown-car-computing.

Re: Leaking URLs to the Clown

#55
post #10

> read some feed containing something relatively private, guess what, they're reading it too Everyone needs to accept the fact there's no such thing as a private URL. There are URLs that can be originally communicated to you privately—through a private channel, that is—but insisting on holding onto some (wrong) belief that we can or should be able to mint URLs that themselves possess some "private" quality goes again…

Nothing is ever truly 100% private, but certain things are "private enough". A password can be leaked just as well as any URL, particularly if the password needs to be periodically sent to a downstream server to do the feed polling, and hence stored in plaintext. URLs generally have less protection than a password because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the…

> URLs generally have less protection than a password

That's an understatement. Passwords are supposed to be private by design. URLs are not.

> because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves)

That's simply not true. URLs don't have protection because the notion of a private URL is a flat-out contradiction. As I said before: it goes against the fundamental design of the Web.

URLs are not in any sense designed to be private. Like, at all. If anything, they are designed not to be private. URLs are by their nature public information[1]. Anyone who believes or wishes otherwise is someone who believes or wishes that the Web is something other than the thing actually proposed, designed, and implemented.

Anyone can, at their own peril, try to devise other higher-level systems that exploit implementation details and other incidentals in non-normative ways while trying to justify it on the basis that it jibes with what you have observed in practice. You are also free to design a content-protection scheme that hinges on the whitespace in the client request varying just so, or where the HTTP heADEr naMEs follow a suPEr seCREt caPITALIZATIOn coNVENTIOn, etc. But no one else has any obligation to conform to the expectations necessarily prescribed by those lame designs nor to commit themselves to any action/inaction implied.

"Leaking URLs" is a non-offense.

1. https://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypert...>

Re: Leaking URLs to the Clown

#57
post #23

There is approximately zero point in calling out the bad behaviour of anonymous applications.

Wanted to post it. Posted it. If you think more "point" than that is necessary, you are deeply confused about a great many things.

Why didn't you want to post a couple more characters of the app name you were examining?

Of all the comments here what was the point of only replying to that one?

Post reply on HN