21 ms·

> It wasn't hidden though. If a key is taped to the outside of the door that it opens, you still can't use it without committing a trespass. Not unless you g

> It wasn't hidden though. If a key is taped to the outside of the door that it opens, you still can't use it without committing a trespass. Not unless you got authorization to use it from the right person(s) first. Shitty security isn't a legal invitation.

zilti 3y ago
The key was taped to the outside of the door explicitly to be used by the customer though.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  No it wasn't intended for customer use, the customer wasn't supposed to be directly hitting that API. There was reverse engineering that had to happen before recovering the plaintext password. He was already someplace fairly iffy for him to be. It was much more like being on the front porch of a house you don't own and finding a key.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Enough with building comparisons. The vendor put the master keys of the main database in a publicly-accessible package. It’s insane. Of course the researchers tested the keys, to check whether it was true. If it can be proven that it was used for nefarious reasons, then ok for blaming him, but as far as we know, the researcher just used it to get convincing evidence and left the system. The company is to blame 100%, and the research should get an encouraging award for white-hat reporting. Not this.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      If you're just a "researcher" and you're not a cop then your job isn't to get convincing evidence of anything.
      - eastbound 3y ago
        If you’re a company then your job is to keep our bank accounts safe. See, I can do it too. Now that we’ve made clear that no-one is doing its job, YES, free citizen should be able to try to poke into the awful security of corporate IT systems and report it in good faith without even spending a second dealing with trouble.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        No it really doesn't work that way. Companies don't go around testing the physical security of the banks that they use. They rely on the legal system and insurance to deal with any failures that the bank has. The right to pen test businesses doesn't actually exist.
        SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
        On what reasonable basis? Because it embarasses the company, possibly damaging their business? I say that the company reaps what they sow. They should be grateful. If an ethical hacker doesn't find it, eventually an unethical one will.
  - DANmode 3y ago
    If that house (the app) was built inside my living room (my phone), then how does the analogy play out?
Prickle 3y ago
I think an electronic keypad works better as a example. You get to a door, and there is a postit note on the door saying "Keycode is 2424". You know your job is in the building. Your keycard let you into the room with the door. Therefore, if this door lead to a "high-security" area, surely they wouldn't put a postit note there? Maybe, as the bug exterminator, or maintenance person, it is expected that I should be able to enter that room?
- lamontcg 3y ago
  Except that this is an API which is not yours that you've found by reverse engineering. You're constructing an analogy where the authorization surface is much less distinct where you're already allowed into the building because that makes the surface much less distinct. That analogy isn't at all obvious to me and I don't think you've offered any rationale for why that is more appropriate. Once you start playing around with someone's remote API then I'd strongly advise you to consider it more like a door around the outside of a building. If you want to argue about that with me, then you may wind up arguing about that with a judge.
d1sxeyes 3y ago
Hmm, big caveat there is that in most jurisdictions that would only be considered trespass if you’ve been pre-warned that you’re not allowed in. The “key” analogy though is a bit stretched. It is clear that here, the credentials were used in a way other than intended. The questions are now rather “is it reasonable to expect that a person interacting with a website normally would reasonably be permitted to use anything sent to them by that website in any way they choose?” A lot of us here are more tech-minded and would likely say “yes, if you don’t want people using credentials, don’t provide them”. The courts on the other hand may take a different view and say “well we already restrict what people can do with content on a website through copyright laws, this person should not automatically have the right to use those credentials in any way other than the way provided”. It will become even more complicated if the website has terms of service which clearly state something which has a similar technical meaning to “no trespassing”’s physical meaning.

zilti 3y ago

The key was taped to the outside of the door explicitly to be used by the customer though.

lamontcg 3y ago
No it wasn't intended for customer use, the customer wasn't supposed to be directly hitting that API. There was reverse engineering that had to happen before recovering the plaintext password. He was already someplace fairly iffy for him to be. It was much more like being on the front porch of a house you don't own and finding a key.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Enough with building comparisons. The vendor put the master keys of the main database in a publicly-accessible package. It’s insane. Of course the researchers tested the keys, to check whether it was true. If it can be proven that it was used for nefarious reasons, then ok for blaming him, but as far as we know, the researcher just used it to get convincing evidence and left the system. The company is to blame 100%, and the research should get an encouraging award for white-hat reporting. Not this.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    If you're just a "researcher" and you're not a cop then your job isn't to get convincing evidence of anything.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      If you’re a company then your job is to keep our bank accounts safe. See, I can do it too. Now that we’ve made clear that no-one is doing its job, YES, free citizen should be able to try to poke into the awful security of corporate IT systems and report it in good faith without even spending a second dealing with trouble.
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        No it really doesn't work that way. Companies don't go around testing the physical security of the banks that they use. They rely on the legal system and insurance to deal with any failures that the bank has. The right to pen test businesses doesn't actually exist.
        SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
        On what reasonable basis? Because it embarasses the company, possibly damaging their business? I say that the company reaps what they sow. They should be grateful. If an ethical hacker doesn't find it, eventually an unethical one will.
- DANmode 3y ago
  If that house (the app) was built inside my living room (my phone), then how does the analogy play out?

Prickle 3y ago

I think an electronic keypad works better as a example. You get to a door, and there is a postit note on the door saying "Keycode is 2424". You know your job is in the building. Your keycard let you into the room with the door. Therefore, if this door lead to a "high-security" area, surely they wouldn't put a postit note there? Maybe, as the bug exterminator, or maintenance person, it is expected that I should be able to enter that room?

lamontcg 3y ago
Except that this is an API which is not yours that you've found by reverse engineering. You're constructing an analogy where the authorization surface is much less distinct where you're already allowed into the building because that makes the surface much less distinct. That analogy isn't at all obvious to me and I don't think you've offered any rationale for why that is more appropriate. Once you start playing around with someone's remote API then I'd strongly advise you to consider it more like a door around the outside of a building. If you want to argue about that with me, then you may wind up arguing about that with a judge.

d1sxeyes 3y ago

Hmm, big caveat there is that in most jurisdictions that would only be considered trespass if you’ve been pre-warned that you’re not allowed in. The “key” analogy though is a bit stretched. It is clear that here, the credentials were used in a way other than intended. The questions are now rather “is it reasonable to expect that a person interacting with a website normally would reasonably be permitted to use anything sent to them by that website in any way they choose?” A lot of us here are more tech-minded and would likely say “yes, if you don’t want people using credentials, don’t provide them”. The courts on the other hand may take a different view and say “well we already restrict what people can do with content on a website through copyright laws, this person should not automatically have the right to use those credentials in any way other than the way provided”. It will become even more complicated if the website has terms of service which clearly state something which has a similar technical meaning to “no trespassing”’s physical meaning.