3 ms·

> You could say that about any exploit: if you get past security using it, security didn't exist, but you're still potentially doing something worth criminalizi

> You could say that about any exploit: if you get past security using it, security didn't exist, but you're still potentially doing something worth criminalizing. Criminalizing the act of exploiting someone's shitty security reminds me of how banks transfer the responsibility for their failure to properly vet the identity of someone they loan money to by calling it "identity theft." If you design a website that solicits people to submit personally identifiable information, you should be the one held accountable when that information is vulnerable, and especially when it is utterly trivial to access it (such as in this case).

scarmig 9y ago
There can be multiple parties responsible. If someone steals a bunch of Social Security numbers using SQLI on an insecure website and sells them on the black market, should the intruder be held criminally responsible? Yes, in my book. That's entirely on top of the website operator. There should be some liability there, IMO, but it's unclear to me how much. Though I wouldn't mind a world where all personal data is viewed like a form of radioactive waste to be avoided at all costs, it's not obvious that that's what our legal system should encourage.
- bb88 9y ago
  > That's entirely on top of the website operator. There should be some liability there, IMO, but it's unclear to me how much. The minimum companies need to do is notify the affected consumers. I think we can all agree on this. > Though I wouldn't mind a world where all personal data is viewed like a form of radioactive waste to be avoided at all costs, it's not obvious that that's what our legal system should encourage. From a market perspective, as long as PII has intrinsic black-market value, people will want it. The government could tax the amount of PII a company might store, say, but the black-market wouldn't pay the tax, anyway. Removing value from PII would mean removing convenience for the sake of security. So I can't get loans/credit card applications online anymore, etc.
dogma1138 9y ago
Does the quality of the locks on your doors should mandate the severity of the crime if some one breaks in?
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  If you are storing the property of others behind your door and you fail to properly secure the door you bear responsibility for that negligence aside and apart from the guilt of the thief.
  - dpwm 9y ago
    Right. I have an analogy I prefer in many of the cases where there is a clear smell of gross negligence, which does seem to be most. Consider if a bank that takes safety deposits has accidentally given open access to their vault to the street and none of their employees or customers seem to have noticed. You will get people oblivious, you'd imagine you'd get thieves in there, but you may get people just poking their head in in sheer wonder. Then you're going to get people who are slightly more curious as to how this bewilderment came to be. I have been that latter person on two occasions. Once when a friend was restoring an e-commerce site from a backup (including customer details) and didn't initially see what was wrong with the backup being publicly accessible until I pointed out there was a link to it where the home page might once have been. The second involved a university network outsourced to a multinational engineering firm; a DHCP server; Windows Vista's DHCP client; the DHCP broadcast bit and a power outage. I can't remember the specifics but I realised that I could restore connectivity to people who had mysteriously lost it by responding to their DHCP requests after relaying them to the real DHCP server and repeating the response as a broadcast. I was naturally cautious and gained permission from the laptop owners. I only realised the implications of what I could have done to everybody affected on the network after the fact. If anybody ever wants a real-world example of how a MITM attack can be carried out by somebody other than a network admin, consider what would happen if your DHCP server didn't respond in the expected way and the client was waiting for a broadcast. It is only recently that I realise how exposed I was. I had no ill intent, but was merely seeking a better understanding of the world as opportunities arose. The latter experience is deeply important on a personal level as it turned coding from something vaguely interesting but too difficult to do anything useful into something more like a microscope, telescope or oscilloscope to me. The problem is that intent is hard to measure. In the mock trial that plays out in my head from time to time, was I poking my head around or casing the joint? I believe that the evidence could have pointed to either.
currymj 9y ago
at the same time, it's possible for the website to do absolutely everything right and still lose a lot of information. one reasonable solution is just to say tough luck, it's still your fault, and then every company dealing with sensitive information buys data-breach insurance, with the insurance company helping to vet and improve their systems and processes if they want. this arrangement is pretty common and i could imagine it becoming legally mandatory. even if there's a real unavoidable zero day, still hold the company liable, make them use their insurance, and then let the insurance company sue whoever is really at fault to recover their losses.
dTal 9y ago
>Criminalizing the act of exploiting someone's shitty security reminds me of how banks transfer the responsibility for their failure to properly vet the identity of someone they loan money to by calling it "identity theft." Mitchell and Webb did a great sketch calling out exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c57WKxeELY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c57WKxeELY "Sounds a bit more like a bank robbery..."

scarmig 9y ago

There can be multiple parties responsible. If someone steals a bunch of Social Security numbers using SQLI on an insecure website and sells them on the black market, should the intruder be held criminally responsible? Yes, in my book. That's entirely on top of the website operator. There should be some liability there, IMO, but it's unclear to me how much. Though I wouldn't mind a world where all personal data is viewed like a form of radioactive waste to be avoided at all costs, it's not obvious that that's what our legal system should encourage.

bb88 9y ago
> That's entirely on top of the website operator. There should be some liability there, IMO, but it's unclear to me how much. The minimum companies need to do is notify the affected consumers. I think we can all agree on this. > Though I wouldn't mind a world where all personal data is viewed like a form of radioactive waste to be avoided at all costs, it's not obvious that that's what our legal system should encourage. From a market perspective, as long as PII has intrinsic black-market value, people will want it. The government could tax the amount of PII a company might store, say, but the black-market wouldn't pay the tax, anyway. Removing value from PII would mean removing convenience for the sake of security. So I can't get loans/credit card applications online anymore, etc.

dogma1138 9y ago

Does the quality of the locks on your doors should mandate the severity of the crime if some one breaks in?

StanislavPetrov 9y ago
If you are storing the property of others behind your door and you fail to properly secure the door you bear responsibility for that negligence aside and apart from the guilt of the thief.
- dpwm 9y ago
  Right. I have an analogy I prefer in many of the cases where there is a clear smell of gross negligence, which does seem to be most. Consider if a bank that takes safety deposits has accidentally given open access to their vault to the street and none of their employees or customers seem to have noticed. You will get people oblivious, you'd imagine you'd get thieves in there, but you may get people just poking their head in in sheer wonder. Then you're going to get people who are slightly more curious as to how this bewilderment came to be. I have been that latter person on two occasions. Once when a friend was restoring an e-commerce site from a backup (including customer details) and didn't initially see what was wrong with the backup being publicly accessible until I pointed out there was a link to it where the home page might once have been. The second involved a university network outsourced to a multinational engineering firm; a DHCP server; Windows Vista's DHCP client; the DHCP broadcast bit and a power outage. I can't remember the specifics but I realised that I could restore connectivity to people who had mysteriously lost it by responding to their DHCP requests after relaying them to the real DHCP server and repeating the response as a broadcast. I was naturally cautious and gained permission from the laptop owners. I only realised the implications of what I could have done to everybody affected on the network after the fact. If anybody ever wants a real-world example of how a MITM attack can be carried out by somebody other than a network admin, consider what would happen if your DHCP server didn't respond in the expected way and the client was waiting for a broadcast. It is only recently that I realise how exposed I was. I had no ill intent, but was merely seeking a better understanding of the world as opportunities arose. The latter experience is deeply important on a personal level as it turned coding from something vaguely interesting but too difficult to do anything useful into something more like a microscope, telescope or oscilloscope to me. The problem is that intent is hard to measure. In the mock trial that plays out in my head from time to time, was I poking my head around or casing the joint? I believe that the evidence could have pointed to either.

currymj 9y ago

at the same time, it's possible for the website to do absolutely everything right and still lose a lot of information. one reasonable solution is just to say tough luck, it's still your fault, and then every company dealing with sensitive information buys data-breach insurance, with the insurance company helping to vet and improve their systems and processes if they want. this arrangement is pretty common and i could imagine it becoming legally mandatory. even if there's a real unavoidable zero day, still hold the company liable, make them use their insurance, and then let the insurance company sue whoever is really at fault to recover their losses.

dTal 9y ago

>Criminalizing the act of exploiting someone's shitty security reminds me of how banks transfer the responsibility for their failure to properly vet the identity of someone they loan money to by calling it "identity theft." Mitchell and Webb did a great sketch calling out exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c57WKxeELY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c57WKxeELY "Sounds a bit more like a bank robbery..."