4 ms·

It is not listed as an in-scope domain on Uber's bug bounty policy. You would have to argue that the access was unintentional - that you believed you had author

by beejiu 10y ago

It is not listed as an in-scope domain on Uber's bug bounty policy. You would have to argue that the access was unintentional - that you believed you had authorization to access the server from Uber and that Uber had the ability to assign that authorization on behalf of SendGrid.

tyingq 10y ago
That is a bit tricky. You could argue that the MX records for a domain that is "in scope" (www.uber.com) are in play. They don't specifically say you can only follow CNAME and A records...and you do have to follow CNAME for some of the listed domains.
- otakucode 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the law simply does not care about technical details. If you were being prosecuted for this sort of thing and you brought and expert witness or testified yourself about a technical justification such as this, you would be accused of attempting to bamboozle the court with fancy technical wording and it would not go well for you. You might even get found to be in contempt of court. Even the very simple fact that 1% of DNA tests have been shown to be false due to sample contamination and other factors is not permitted to be mentioned in court when DNA matches are being used to prosecute someone as this is too technical. Cases which involve computers fare even worse.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I'm sure a lawyer would find some non technical analogy to help explain the concept. It isn't a trick...Some of the approved domains have no IP addresses directly associated with them. You have to traverse a reference to another domain name, not on the list, to get to an actual IP address. Now if that traversal is by something called a CNAME or something called an MX, does it matter?
uraniumhacker 10y ago
The scope of Uber's bug bounty program was updated after this report was submitted so that does not count.

4 ms·

It is not listed as an in-scope domain on Uber's bug bounty policy. You would have to argue that the access was unintentional - that you believed you had author

by beejiu 10y ago

tyingq 10y ago
That is a bit tricky. You could argue that the MX records for a domain that is "in scope" (www.uber.com) are in play. They don't specifically say you can only follow CNAME and A records...and you do have to follow CNAME for some of the listed domains.
- otakucode 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the law simply does not care about technical details. If you were being prosecuted for this sort of thing and you brought and expert witness or testified yourself about a technical justification such as this, you would be accused of attempting to bamboozle the court with fancy technical wording and it would not go well for you. You might even get found to be in contempt of court. Even the very simple fact that 1% of DNA tests have been shown to be false due to sample contamination and other factors is not permitted to be mentioned in court when DNA matches are being used to prosecute someone as this is too technical. Cases which involve computers fare even worse.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I'm sure a lawyer would find some non technical analogy to help explain the concept. It isn't a trick...Some of the approved domains have no IP addresses directly associated with them. You have to traverse a reference to another domain name, not on the list, to get to an actual IP address. Now if that traversal is by something called a CNAME or something called an MX, does it matter?
uraniumhacker 10y ago
The scope of Uber's bug bounty program was updated after this report was submitted so that does not count.