16 ms·
New documents for the Okta breach
- PedroBatista 5y agoAgain and again this seems to be true: No matter what they say or do or what you perceive from brash to goodie-two-shoes, the real truth only comes out when real shit hits the fan.
- steve_adams_86 5y agoIt’s like the stoics said: You can’t judge the skill of a captain on calm, flat waters. It’s in a storm or emergency that threatens to sink or ground the ship that you see what they’re really made of.
- mooreds 5y agoNote he also says he was fired for not taking these tweets down: https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508610588200607746 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508610588200607746
- grenran 5y agoThe plot thickens...
- detaro 5y agohow?
- boomskats 5y agoZoom fired someone for a tweet discrediting a partner company.
- boringg 5y agoIs it because of contractual obligations to not defame partner company? I have to assume its legal thats shutting this down as a concern of a litigation.
- jaywalk 5y agoMore likely just a friend calling in a favor, I would think. They didn't fire him on the spot, they asked him to delete the tweets first. That's what they really wanted.
- boringg 5y agoCould be but the only leverage they have over him would be while he holds a job with them. As soon as he doesn't their obligations are over and are probably legally protected at that point. I imagine they wanted the tweets gone because they didn't want the legal risk. It could also be a friend calling in a favor. Both very viable options. Feel bad for the employee caught in the crosshairs.
- politelemon 5y agoNon-American here, what is 'at will state'?
- inigoesdr 5y agoIt means the employee can leave, or be terminated, for any reason without legal repercussions in that state.
- xoa 5y ago>It means the employee can leave, or be terminated, for any reason without legal repercussions in that state. Just to be clear, for any LEGAL reason. "At-will" in no way negates statutory rights such as anti-discrimination law or refusal to commit illegal acts. Retaliation against certain protected acts is forbidden. Also, like almost everything under state law there is significant variety even within a given category. There are many states which are at-will overall but also have state level exceptions for things like public policy (this is where whistle blowing can fall under, though that involves some complicated questions too), implied covenants, etc. Finally, at-will is just a legal default, someone could still negotiate a contract that required some different higher level of cause. So as always, need to consult the specific state law and contract in question unless it's a clear violation of something federal like the Civil Rights Act.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y agoDoesn't that feel more like it should be described as "not explicitly illegal"? Saying that the reason must be legal gives it the sense that there is a list of valid reasons you could fire someone when, as I understand it, that list doesn't exist, and there's strictly a list of reasons you can't. "You wore green shoes so you're fired" is a reason that someone can be fired, but to say it's a legal reason gives it weight such a frivolous dismissal doesn't deserve.
- sofixa 5y agoHonestly that just seems crazy. Unless management/HR are stupid, how exactly do you prove you were let go because of X protected thing instead of Y? You hope they settle out of court? And of course, not everyone will have the time or resources for a potentially multi-year legal battle. That's one of those American things that when you first hear about them, they sound weird/wrong or "okay, why not", but on second thought are just downright crazy and screw over the common people. Like no paid leave by default, even for maternity.
- flerchin 5y agoAfter the tweets are out there, seems prudent to me to take them down to keep your job? Maybe reach out to someone and tell them to preserve the data before you delete it? Zoom:"We don't like these tweets, delete them or you're fired." Bill:"Ok." Other Person:"Seems Bill took down the tweets, but here's the same info." Bill obviously begins looking for a new job, and probably gets a raise, due to market conditions, anyway.
- misnome 5y agoMaybe it was: “Zoom: Take these down; Bill: No, I am within my rights as this has nothing to do with my Job; Zoom: OK you are fired”
- _fat_santa 5y agoWhy would Zoom care if you posted stuff about another company?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dang 5y agoRelated: I have been terminated from Zoom for refusing to remove the following tweets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30842186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30842186 - March 2022 (123 comments)
- vlovich123 5y agoDiscussion with a coworker sparked a perspective I hadn't considered. Did he obtain these documents because of disclosures made to Zoom and him having access because he's an employee (& potentially being covered by NDAs he signed)? Or did he obtain them in some other fashion? That would change the perspective of him being fired over these tweets.
- detaro 5y agoHe says he got them independently of his employment at Zoom.
- vlovich123 5y agoLink? I missed that in the thread
- detaro 5y agohttps://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- binarymax 5y agoWhy watermark the docs with your name/handle? This is attention seeking and asking for trouble. If the release is meant to be informative and altruistic - do it anonymously.
- hackernewds 5y agoAs expected appears that the poster has gotten relieved of his job, and has now created a post about his firing on HN
- segmondy 5y agoLots of companies have reached out to him asking him to apply. I suspect he will get a better opportunity with better pay. :)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- natas 5y agoLooks like Okta doesn't take security seriously.
- dboreham 5y agoI'm perplexed by most of the response to this (the "brouhaha"). Don't we expect user desktop environments to become compromised from time to time? I mean, obviously we try to avoid that happening, but practically speaking it does happen because the user desktop is a very hostile environment and current protection measures are not really 100% effective. So instead we focus on defense in depth meaning that if a user's desktop is compromised, the amount of damage done is limited, by design. I think the folks hollering that Okta knew a user desktop was compromised and "did nothing about the breach" are over playing that specific event. I'm going to guess that user desktops are compromised frequently and per se this doesn't represent a "breach". If it did, then every large company would suffer a breach every week, at least. Surely the aspects to focus on are their apparent opsec failures such as passwords in XL spreadsheet, possibly lack of patches on the desktop OS, lack of rate limits on actions by support staff, lack of constraints to affect only users belonging to active support tickets, etc.
- jiveturkey 5y agoI don't think this is the source of the brouhaha, but wasn't this an RDP compromise ... not exactly "user desktop" compromise. Knowing how people do these things, my _guess_ is that Sitel has a fairly locked down desktop. But not locked down enough -- somehow RDP is allowed. The user here doesn't care to work in the Sitel desktop as probably things are highly restricted, so does RDP in from his personal machine. > I'm going to guess that user desktops are compromised frequently doubtful But as I said, I don't think this is what has people up in arms.
- jiveturkey 5y agoWhat the heck is hxxps?
- meatsock 5y agoin the past i've found that replacing all instances of 'http' with 'hxxp' in data from untrusted or dangerous sources will reduce the chances of accidentally accessing URIs that you would not want anyone to be able to go to accidentally. it's an extra hoop to jump through, like spelling out an email address to stymie spam harvestors.
- kappattack 5y agoalso avoids the source of the link being shown as a referral on analytics dashboards
- jiveturkey 5y agoThere are analytics dashboards for pdf documents?