3 ms·
> After reporting the vulnerability to Cox, they investigated if the specific vector had ever been maliciously exploited in the past and found no history of abu
by rwmj 2y ago
> After reporting the vulnerability to Cox, they investigated if the specific vector had ever been maliciously exploited in the past and found no history of abuse
Would you trust a thing they say? It seems their whole network is swiss cheese.
- fragmede 2y agothis is why everything gets logged to an S3 bucket under an AWS account that has only write permissions and three people are required to break into the account that can do anything else with that bucket. I don't know if that's what Cox has, but that's how it's architect it to be able to claim there's no history of abuse.
- rwmj 2y agoThat's how it should be architected, but the article shows that Cox's network gives no thought to security so it's unlikely how it is architected. Even if the Cox answer is correct to the best of their knowledge, we can't rule out that attackers are inside the network wiping out their logs.
- djaykay 2y agoYou’re right, except I’d say that Cox gave some thought so security, but not enough. Which is in some ways even more dangerous than ignoring security entirely.
- randomcarbloke 2y agoif they say not, does that imply another vector that they may or may not know about given the author had already found a compromised device.
- prettyStandard 2y agoThat was my first thought. That they didn't even find the original attack vector. But comments above this suggest something even worse they are in Cox's network actively wiping out their own logs.
- halJordan 2y agoYou can't just refuse to participate, especially if you're the one who started the whole conversation. At some point you say "this is what i have and it's better than before."