3 ms·

Why would you have to guess when the source describe it. Anyway, funny how you mention "only"- the "only" increase in trackability is to be able to retrieve use

Why would you have to guess when the source describe it. Anyway, funny how you mention "only"- the "only" increase in trackability is to be able to retrieve user information about users using the world's most popular online services. I don't want pornhub to be able to view my photo from Google. Comparing this to CSS fingerprinting seems misinformed at best.

sa1 5y ago
I might be misunderstanding you, but it's a leak of database name, not database contents. You can tell someone visited a website by looking at the name, but your photo from Google is safe.
- wutwutwutwut 5y ago
  I'm so confused now. Did you read about the issue? I wonder if I misunderstood maybe. As I understand it: According to the source, Google inserts unique user ID is into database name. An attacker can make a request to Google, pass in this unique user ID into their API and get profile details, for example a photo back. The attacker does not need access to the database data, only the database name, since the user ID is embedded in the _name_. You are right it's a leak of a database name, but Google store sensitive data in the database name.
  - sa1 5y ago
    My reading was that a user can be identified by the userid. I'm not sure what other actions just having an userid authorizes, but I would lay that bit on google.
    - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
      Safari leaks very sensitive information (database names) and its on Google? That's bizarre.
      - sa1 5y ago
        There are clearly two issues here, only the first one of which has been demonstrated. One is the leak of database names, which is on Apple. The other one is releasing sensitive data on insufficient authorisation(just an user id), which would be on google.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Google allows attackers to retrieve the profile picture of accounts if they know the account name, which they can retrieve using this bug.
  - sa1 5y ago
    Which sounds, like they are meant to be public? If the user has already been identified, public info can’t be expected to be secret anymore.
olliej 5y ago
There are two components in this bug: * Finding your browsing history: historically this was just as trivial as the DB name leak * Finding the google ID: this is the bigger issue and provides a very concrete way of tracking a specific user. I was trying (admittedly terribly) to say the browsing history is not the worst bug in the grand history of the web, although it is very clearly bad. The bigger issue is the google tracking ID being leaked to third parties. [edit: I incorrectly claimed there was a google id when you weren't using a google account, forgetting of course that YouTube is part of google. herp derp. I work in tech and use to work on a browser engine]

sa1 5y ago

I might be misunderstanding you, but it's a leak of database name, not database contents. You can tell someone visited a website by looking at the name, but your photo from Google is safe.

wutwutwutwut 5y ago
I'm so confused now. Did you read about the issue? I wonder if I misunderstood maybe. As I understand it: According to the source, Google inserts unique user ID is into database name. An attacker can make a request to Google, pass in this unique user ID into their API and get profile details, for example a photo back. The attacker does not need access to the database data, only the database name, since the user ID is embedded in the _name_. You are right it's a leak of a database name, but Google store sensitive data in the database name.
- sa1 5y ago
  My reading was that a user can be identified by the userid. I'm not sure what other actions just having an userid authorizes, but I would lay that bit on google.
  - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
    Safari leaks very sensitive information (database names) and its on Google? That's bizarre.
    - sa1 5y ago
      There are clearly two issues here, only the first one of which has been demonstrated. One is the leak of database names, which is on Apple. The other one is releasing sensitive data on insufficient authorisation(just an user id), which would be on google.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Google allows attackers to retrieve the profile picture of accounts if they know the account name, which they can retrieve using this bug.
- sa1 5y ago
  Which sounds, like they are meant to be public? If the user has already been identified, public info can’t be expected to be secret anymore.

olliej 5y ago

There are two components in this bug: * Finding your browsing history: historically this was just as trivial as the DB name leak * Finding the google ID: this is the bigger issue and provides a very concrete way of tracking a specific user. I was trying (admittedly terribly) to say the browsing history is not the worst bug in the grand history of the web, although it is very clearly bad. The bigger issue is the google tracking ID being leaked to third parties. [edit: I incorrectly claimed there was a google id when you weren't using a google account, forgetting of course that YouTube is part of google. herp derp. I work in tech and use to work on a browser engine]