5 ms·
Is it even possible to "hack" an API that has no authorisation for any of its methods?
by jabron 2mo ago
Is it even possible to "hack" an API that has no authorisation for any of its methods?
- huflungdung 2mo ago[dead]
- croes 2mo agoIf you ask a software developer: no If you ask a judge: probably yes
- nicman23 2mo agonot really, it needs criminal intent.
- croes 2mo agoNope https://www.heise.de/en/news/Modern-Solution-Court-of-Appeal-confirms-guilt-of-security-researcher-10007206.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/Modern-Solution-Court-of-Appeal...
- mr_mitm 2mo agoAFAIK felonies in Germany require "intent", not "criminal intent". The guy could have stopped earlier, right after testing the password. But he decided to use it to view data which didn't belong to him. I realize I'm going against the general public opinion, but he didn't have to do that, and I can see why the court didn't accept "but I only did it to take screenshots" as a valid defense, because that's clearly intent.
- croes 2mo agoModern Solution would have claimed that the password wouldn‘t have allowed access to important data.
- mr_mitm 2mo agoSo be it. Publicly disclose the vulnerability and stop doing business with them.
- croes 2mo agoHe didn’t do business with them, his customer did. And publicly disclose that the publicly available software contains the password in plain text could have been construed as aiding a criminal offense. He was ordered by his customer to look into logging problems. He found the password in plain text, looked into a database he thought contains only data of his customer and found it‘s data of other customers too.
- kenniskrag 2mo agoIn switzerland it depends 143bis StGB: Any person who, with the intention of securing an unlawful gain for themselves or another obtains for themselves or another data that are stored or transmitted electronically or in some similar manner and which are not intended for them and have been specially secured to prevent their access shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.
- ofjcihen 2mo agoSo this wording is really interesting in the bug bounty sense and I’m curious if you know how it would be handled. If someone hits an unsecured API, receives information, and notifies the company of this while also requesting a bounty, would that satisfy all of the requirements of prosecution? The unlawful gain is the sticking point in my mind.
- kenniskrag 2mo agoIf you access "private" data it's also unlawful acording to 143. Pentesting is a hot topic but there are comapnys acusing you of hacking if you send them a security report (hacking). If they mention a bug bounty program then you are allowed to test their security as described in this program but not more.
- kenniskrag 2mo agoIf you publish the bug then it could be unfair competition in my opinion. There was a product test where the mentioned some flaws of a medicine but didnt mention other producers of same drug. They broke the UC rules and paid some money: https://politchronik.swiss/de/prozesse/57953-das-kassensturz-urteil https://politchronik.swiss/de/prozesse/57953-das-kassensturz...
- CJefferson 2mo agoI'm a software developer. This is clearly bad, and we can decide what it should be called. It might not be 'hacking', but you are clearly abusing the computer to steal a space in a class you shouldn't have.
- Foskya 2mo agoI guess it falls in the same category of burglars that enter from the unlocked main door. It is still illegal even if there were no security measures to overcome by the attacker. That being said using an API does require a minimum of computer knowledge
- msy 2mo agoIf you leave your front door open I don’t think you’d classifying someone walking in and taking your laptop as ‘not stealing’.
- graemep 2mo agoHowever walking through the door would not be a crime in itself, where I live anyway.
- konart 2mo agoIt's funny how the two of our comments are polar opposites
- bryanrasmussen 2mo agowhere do you live? Most places I've lived if you walk into a private residence where you don't know anyone but the door is open that is unlawful entry or trespassing. Same if someone forgets to lock the door of their business when they close at 9 p.m and you go in at midnight.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- cung 2mo agoYou can legally walk into someones home in your country if the door is not locked? Where is that?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- walthamstow 2mo agoIf you talking about Britain, it depends on why you walked through the door
- graemep 2mo ago
- coldtea 2mo agoPractically speaking, discovering that fact and taking advantage of it, is already "hacking".
- tossandthrow 2mo agoWe are used the interfaces being web interfaces. But say that the underlying api exposes some endpoint discoverability capabilities (eg. Exposing an openAPI spec), then arguably the action was invited: the actions was documented along with the auth model.
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoUnfortunately normies tend to treat APIs like "staff only" stickers on doors.
- coldtea 2mo agoIf you forget a slip of paper writing "the door is open + your alert shutdown pin" on a sticker outside your house, is it not still an issue if someone enters who you didn't invite?
- Ekaros 2mo agoI don't think that argument would go down very well if the API allowed transferring money from company to yourself. Clearly there is at least on some level expectations what is and what is not allowed.
- stochastic-parr 2mo agoIt's being used unintentionally to do things it wasn't designed to do... isn't that hacking by definition? Missing Auth is a typical finding.
- reedf1 2mo agoIn a legal sense any unwanted intrusion can be considered hacking - i.e. a 'hack' is not contingent on penetrating authorization. In practice most APIs are secured by obscurity rather than any high quality rigorous authorization. The only thing it would make absolutely clear at a legal level is that you do not want the API to be publicly used, but for a jury/judge accessing an unadvertised API via browser tools is hacking.
- ra 2mo agoI'm pretty sure that's not universally true. IANAL but I believe the legality depends on location and context.
- torginus 2mo agoI think this is the solution to a lot of AI 'alignment' issues. We have laws, and LLMs should NEVER break them unless the user states its fine with some qualifying condition. Yes, every country has a different legal system, but I think there's a decent idea of what constitutes intrusion thats agreed on in most parts of the world. In grey area scenarios, the user should be able to override this, with a warning of clear consequences of, and should they accept, users should be held criminally liable. If the LLM does so unprompted, the responsibility should be the providers'. LLMs should be considered tools, legally speaking.
- reedf1 2mo agoI do think one day that LLMs may be so 'aligned' that hacking culture will have a resurgence in some way. In the sense that the only way to do anything a bit below board will be done manually.
- gnfargbl 2mo agoAt least one person has received significant jail time for doing exactly that: https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/new-york-man-sentenced-41-months-prison-hacking-att-s-servers https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/new-york-man-sentenced-41... It's not straightforward: the conviction was eventually vacated (without really addressing the substantive point), and it is possible that the US authorities went particularly heavy in this case for other reasons. But yes, attacking an unauthenticated API has previously met the threshold for conviction.
- CJefferson 2mo agoMy gym class operates on 'write on a piece of paper, cross off your name if you want to cancel'. I could cross someone else's name off and write mine in. They would have trouble figuring out it was me who did the malicious cross-off. That wouldn't make it remotely acceptable of course.
- Shank 2mo agoYes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is widely criticised for making almost any act a violation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030) including many things that many people do on a routine basis, such as accessing a non-public API. If it was not intended to be accessed and is accessed, then the perpetrator of the crime has met the "exceeds authorized access" clause. > (a) Whoever > (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— > (C) information from any protected computer; > (6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; A "protected computer" is: > (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States So this is a Pilates computer, which probably is used by a business which probably conducts interstate commerce, which probably makes it a protected computer, and the API gave "information". So, yes.
- graemep 2mo agoThe article is about something that happened in Australia. What does the law there say?
- oulipo 2mo agoThe more interesting question is rather: who is responsible? The user who set-up Claw, the LLM provider?
- mr_mitm 2mo agoThe term is insufficiently defined and has overloaded meaning. In the original sense of the word, i.e. creative use of technology? Debatable, and most techies would probably land on the "no" side of the debate. Is it illegal? Depends on the jurisdiction and is up to a judge, but it probably falls under unauthorized modification of computer systems, so here the answer is probably "yes". IANAL, but lack of authorization mechanism is probably not a valid defense. AFAIK lawyers and judges do not follow the law to the letter independent of real world experience, so you can probably argue that if the UI didn't provide a way to cancel other people's appointments, then any reasonable person should realize it wasn't intended for public use and thus refrain from doing it. (Corollary: LLMs are not reasonable persons.) Just like an unlocked house door isn't an invitation to come in, you have to assume it was done accidentally (may depend on customs of the location, but where I come from it's pretty obvious). Is it morally acceptable? Pretty clearly no. Even if it wasn't illegal, it's a jerk move.
- cineticdaffodil 2mo ago[dead]