4 ms·

This is standard practice. Typical HN behaviour to drive by with quite evidently zero relevant background and self-righteously preach for three paragraphs abou

This is standard practice. Typical HN behaviour to drive by with quite evidently zero relevant background and self-righteously preach for three paragraphs about something that you don’t understand. This industry sucks.

skrebbel 8mo ago
It's standard practice and it freaks managers the fuck out, esp if they're not familiar with hacker culture. Maybe the standard practice needs some work? I'm not sure, I understand the perspective of security researchers who want to force action on a fix. But I also completely understand how a deadline is perceived as a threat. Don't forget that there's lots of gray hat / black hat hackers out there as well, who will begin with an email similar to this, add a bitcoin address for the "bug bounty" in the next, and will end with escalating the price of the "bounty" for the "service" of deleting the data they harvested. It's hard even for tech-savvy managers to figure out which of these you're dealing with. Now put yourself into the shoes of the average insurance company middle manager. For completeness, I don't think this company's behavior is excusable. I'm just saying that maybe also the security community should iterate a bit more on the nuances of the "standard practice" vulnerability reporting process, with the explicit goal of not freaking people out so bad.
- yellers 8mo ago
  If this freaks them out maybe they shouldn’t roll their own SaaS?
  - skrebbel 8mo ago
    How is an insurance company a SaaS?
    - JHorse 8mo ago
      Survival (post diving accident) as a Service
    - pimlottc 8mo ago
      Most likely, the insurance company handles the actually insurance policies, claims, payouts, etc themselves, but uses a contractor to build their website, user portals, etc.
  - crispyambulance 8mo ago
    They almost certainly did not. They likely just hired a cheap contractor to get their service up, and went with it when "it worked". The contractor (who was certainly incompetent) probably looked at a bunch of nightmarishly complex identity API's and said "F** it!", combine that with being grossly underpaid and you get stuff like this. It's a bad situation, of course, and involving threatening lawyers makes it even more ugly. But I can understand how a very small business (knowing nothing about IT other that what their incompetent contractor told them) might get really offended and scared shitless by some rando giving them a 30-day deadline, reporting them to authorities, and demanding that they contact all affected customers.
    - master-lincoln 8mo ago
      Sure they might get rightfully scared because their neglect caused potential issues for their customers and having that public might decrease revenue. But that is ok I think. They should get scared enough to not risk such a neglect again
hunterpayne 8mo ago
First day on the Internet huh. A word of advice, never go to Reddit or read the Youtube comment section.
thiht 8mo ago
Maybe the standard practice sucks. No matter how you turn it around, it does sound like blackmail. Just because you disclose a vulnerability to an org doesn’t mean you have any right or legitimacy to impose a deadline on them, you’re not their boss. This is some vigilante shit and it has not justification whatsoever. Report to the org, report to the authorities as needed and move on.
- ThunderSizzle 8mo ago
  Without a deadline of some form, when do you escalate to public knowledge so customers can know they might get defrauded in some capacity?
  - rdtsc 8mo ago
    > Without a deadline of some form, when do you escalate to public knowledge so customers can know they might get defrauded in some capacity? You set a deadline after an initial conversation and urging them to fix it, if they don’t respond. I think the idea would be to escalate slowly. Like the original poster said large tech companies like know how to do this and streamlined the process. But, to someone not familiar with the process it looks like threats and deadlines imposed by a random person. I am not defending the company just presenting their possible point of view. It’s worth seeing things with their eyes so to speak to try to understand their motivations.
    - master-lincoln 8mo ago
      But that is the intention, isn't it? The company showed neglect. The researcher has a moral right ( and I would say duty) to make that public. It's nice of them to give the company some time to get their shit together. After the vulnerability has been fixed there is no issue for customers in publishing about the neglect. The bad press for the company is deserved.
      - rdtsc 8mo ago
        The idea was change the initial approach and not mention deadlines and just see if they’ll fix it. Point to the law indicating they should notify the authorities. Then if they don’t respond, give them a timeline tell them you’re notifying them. Like the original post said this is not Google, not a tech company, this looks like extortion of some sort to them. So it’s not that surprising what their response was. It all depends on the goal. Is the goal for them to fix it most of all? To get them embarrassed? To make a blogpost and get internet points?

skrebbel 8mo ago

It's standard practice and it freaks managers the fuck out, esp if they're not familiar with hacker culture. Maybe the standard practice needs some work? I'm not sure, I understand the perspective of security researchers who want to force action on a fix. But I also completely understand how a deadline is perceived as a threat. Don't forget that there's lots of gray hat / black hat hackers out there as well, who will begin with an email similar to this, add a bitcoin address for the "bug bounty" in the next, and will end with escalating the price of the "bounty" for the "service" of deleting the data they harvested. It's hard even for tech-savvy managers to figure out which of these you're dealing with. Now put yourself into the shoes of the average insurance company middle manager. For completeness, I don't think this company's behavior is excusable. I'm just saying that maybe also the security community should iterate a bit more on the nuances of the "standard practice" vulnerability reporting process, with the explicit goal of not freaking people out so bad.

yellers 8mo ago
If this freaks them out maybe they shouldn’t roll their own SaaS?
- skrebbel 8mo ago
  How is an insurance company a SaaS?
  - JHorse 8mo ago
    Survival (post diving accident) as a Service
  - pimlottc 8mo ago
    Most likely, the insurance company handles the actually insurance policies, claims, payouts, etc themselves, but uses a contractor to build their website, user portals, etc.
- crispyambulance 8mo ago
  They almost certainly did not. They likely just hired a cheap contractor to get their service up, and went with it when "it worked". The contractor (who was certainly incompetent) probably looked at a bunch of nightmarishly complex identity API's and said "F** it!", combine that with being grossly underpaid and you get stuff like this. It's a bad situation, of course, and involving threatening lawyers makes it even more ugly. But I can understand how a very small business (knowing nothing about IT other that what their incompetent contractor told them) might get really offended and scared shitless by some rando giving them a 30-day deadline, reporting them to authorities, and demanding that they contact all affected customers.
  - master-lincoln 8mo ago
    Sure they might get rightfully scared because their neglect caused potential issues for their customers and having that public might decrease revenue. But that is ok I think. They should get scared enough to not risk such a neglect again

hunterpayne 8mo ago

First day on the Internet huh. A word of advice, never go to Reddit or read the Youtube comment section.

thiht 8mo ago

Maybe the standard practice sucks. No matter how you turn it around, it does sound like blackmail. Just because you disclose a vulnerability to an org doesn’t mean you have any right or legitimacy to impose a deadline on them, you’re not their boss. This is some vigilante shit and it has not justification whatsoever. Report to the org, report to the authorities as needed and move on.

ThunderSizzle 8mo ago
Without a deadline of some form, when do you escalate to public knowledge so customers can know they might get defrauded in some capacity?
- rdtsc 8mo ago
  > Without a deadline of some form, when do you escalate to public knowledge so customers can know they might get defrauded in some capacity? You set a deadline after an initial conversation and urging them to fix it, if they don’t respond. I think the idea would be to escalate slowly. Like the original poster said large tech companies like know how to do this and streamlined the process. But, to someone not familiar with the process it looks like threats and deadlines imposed by a random person. I am not defending the company just presenting their possible point of view. It’s worth seeing things with their eyes so to speak to try to understand their motivations.
  - master-lincoln 8mo ago
    But that is the intention, isn't it? The company showed neglect. The researcher has a moral right ( and I would say duty) to make that public. It's nice of them to give the company some time to get their shit together. After the vulnerability has been fixed there is no issue for customers in publishing about the neglect. The bad press for the company is deserved.
    - rdtsc 8mo ago
      The idea was change the initial approach and not mention deadlines and just see if they’ll fix it. Point to the law indicating they should notify the authorities. Then if they don’t respond, give them a timeline tell them you’re notifying them. Like the original post said this is not Google, not a tech company, this looks like extortion of some sort to them. So it’s not that surprising what their response was. It all depends on the goal. Is the goal for them to fix it most of all? To get them embarrassed? To make a blogpost and get internet points?