4 ms·

Thank you, this is the response people here want to hear. And if this gets fixed in a reasonable timeframe, this is just one of those "everyone makes a mistake

Thank you, this is the response people here want to hear. And if this gets fixed in a reasonable timeframe, this is just one of those "everyone makes a mistake one in a while"-things, no big deal.

azalemeth 6y ago
If anything, it's much better than 'no big deal'. It's "We made this design decision, thought you would like it -- we've learnt, changed, and will avoid it later". Can you imagine Google doing something similar? Heck, they're just about to throw the Android rooting community under a hardware-attestation DRM-filled bus.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  True, it is better
- bluesign 6y ago
  More like we made a design decision, than someone warned us this is bad for privacy, we ignored, after 1 year it blew up on HN, now we are fixing it.
  - ajani 6y ago
    That's exactly right. Don't know why I can't upvote this
    - CreepGin 6y ago
      In this day and age, bringing problems to the attention of the right people is a challenge.
  - taneq 6y ago
    Could have been quicker but it's still far better than some smarmy non-apology and continuing as usual, which is sadly what we've come to accept. I don't think they've done too poorly.
- lima 6y ago
  There's no way that this feature would've made it into Chromium.
- anticonformist 6y ago
  They started a fire through mild negligence, denied the fire existed, and only put out the fire when the entire neighborhood started yelling. It was a forgivable-but-negligent decision to write/approve that code in the first place. It was a sign of a bad process that a reported security vulnerability was not escalated to people security-conscious enough to immediately identify this as a major problem. I don't agree with the outrage. Anyone who has followed DDG knows they're legit. They just need to do a bit better. They probably will. Their main feature is privacy. They should be at least as sensitive to privacy vulnerabilities as their most aware users. DDG should announce that they now pay out privacy-related vulnerabilities like this and send the reporter $5k. It would be good honest PR and well worth the expense.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but by default DDG uses redirects to prevent leaking your search queries through the referrer, so they already can technically see every URL you visit. Except their whole product and system is designed around protecting privacy and not storing that data. If the favicon endpoint respects the same rules (which it obviously does), it is no different.
    - sam0x17 6y ago
      Except the favicon thing applies not just to searches on DDG, but every page you visit if you use this browser
      - seba_dos1 6y ago
        Every domain. Still not good, but there's a huge difference.
NegativeLatency 6y ago
It's fixed: https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/pull/878/files https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/pull/878/files
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Wow. That was really not very complex at all... Did they leave off some capabilities that the server side version performed, it was the complexity overstated?
  - bangonkeyboard 6y ago
    > Did they leave off some capabilities that the server side version performed, it was the complexity overstated? The former. This is a quick initial fix that will fail on many sites.

Thank you, this is the response people here want to hear. And if this gets fixed in a reasonable timeframe, this is just one of those "everyone makes a mistake one in a while"-things, no big deal.

azalemeth 6y ago

If anything, it's much better than 'no big deal'. It's "We made this design decision, thought you would like it -- we've learnt, changed, and will avoid it later". Can you imagine Google doing something similar? Heck, they're just about to throw the Android rooting community under a hardware-attestation DRM-filled bus.

pelliphant 6y ago
True, it is better
bluesign 6y ago
More like we made a design decision, than someone warned us this is bad for privacy, we ignored, after 1 year it blew up on HN, now we are fixing it.
- ajani 6y ago
  That's exactly right. Don't know why I can't upvote this
  - CreepGin 6y ago
    In this day and age, bringing problems to the attention of the right people is a challenge.
- taneq 6y ago
  Could have been quicker but it's still far better than some smarmy non-apology and continuing as usual, which is sadly what we've come to accept. I don't think they've done too poorly.
lima 6y ago
There's no way that this feature would've made it into Chromium.
anticonformist 6y ago
They started a fire through mild negligence, denied the fire existed, and only put out the fire when the entire neighborhood started yelling. It was a forgivable-but-negligent decision to write/approve that code in the first place. It was a sign of a bad process that a reported security vulnerability was not escalated to people security-conscious enough to immediately identify this as a major problem. I don't agree with the outrage. Anyone who has followed DDG knows they're legit. They just need to do a bit better. They probably will. Their main feature is privacy. They should be at least as sensitive to privacy vulnerabilities as their most aware users. DDG should announce that they now pay out privacy-related vulnerabilities like this and send the reporter $5k. It would be good honest PR and well worth the expense.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Correct me if I’m wrong, but by default DDG uses redirects to prevent leaking your search queries through the referrer, so they already can technically see every URL you visit. Except their whole product and system is designed around protecting privacy and not storing that data. If the favicon endpoint respects the same rules (which it obviously does), it is no different.
  - sam0x17 6y ago
    Except the favicon thing applies not just to searches on DDG, but every page you visit if you use this browser
    - seba_dos1 6y ago
      Every domain. Still not good, but there's a huge difference.

NegativeLatency 6y ago

It's fixed: https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/pull/878/files https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/pull/878/files

ViViDboarder 6y ago
Wow. That was really not very complex at all... Did they leave off some capabilities that the server side version performed, it was the complexity overstated?
- bangonkeyboard 6y ago
  > Did they leave off some capabilities that the server side version performed, it was the complexity overstated? The former. This is a quick initial fix that will fail on many sites.