7 ms·
Sometimes you can, if you have comprehensive logs that cover it. edit: Within reason, anyway. Obviously if your vulnerability includes write access to logs or
by craigds 8y ago
Sometimes you can, if you have comprehensive logs that cover it.
edit: Within reason, anyway. Obviously if your vulnerability includes write access to logs or something then you're poked.
- yebyen 8y agoI think in this particular case, their policy statement in the sister article from Google blog indicates they couldn't really say that in this case. > We made Google+ with privacy in mind and therefore keep this API’s log data for only two weeks. That means we cannot confirm which users were impacted by this bug. However, we ran a detailed analysis over the two weeks prior to patching the bug, and from that analysis, the Profiles of up to 500,000 Google+ accounts were potentially affected. Our analysis showed that up to 438 applications may have used this API. ^ the above statement, but couched with this: > We found no evidence that any developer was aware of this bug, or abusing the API, and we found no evidence that any Profile data was misused.