2 ms·

The Computer Misuse Act is fairly strict - but in this case we haven't accessed anything without permission, nor altered any data. We spoke to the overall owne

by edent 13y ago

The Computer Misuse Act is fairly strict - but in this case we haven't accessed anything without permission, nor altered any data. We spoke to the overall owner of the sites and they did not object to myself or the magazine publishing this information.

jloughry 13y ago
We spoke to the overall owner of the sites and they did not object to myself or the magazine publishing this information. That's...astonishing.
- edent 13y ago
  We're slightly less litigious this side of the pond... :-)
  - polymatter 13y ago
    I'm UKian and I'm astonished. Having worked in the UK Civil Service, sounds to me the person making this decision didn't know what it meant and that it was an actual security issue. Probably they thought it was sort of idly interesting, like speculating how many office computers are still beige. Not that you were listing sites with trusted nhs.uk domains that appear to be easy to hack.
    - edent 13y ago
      I can assure you that we made it abundantly clear how bad the problem was - including sending link, screenshots, etc. Had phone calls with them where they did sound genuinely concerned. Sadly, it didn't transform into action.
danielweber 13y ago
I saw a screenshot of an XSS injection. You don't know that you haven't altered data. You think you haven't, but you don't know it. I congratulate you for talking to the owners before publication, however.
buro9 13y ago
> We spoke to the overall owner of the sites What do you mean by this? In the article you state: > in many cases there is simply no way to contact the website owners Do you simply refer to the owner of the parent domain name?
- edent 13y ago
  We spoke to HSCIC who manage .nhs.uk. We also spoke to senior civil servants in the Department of Health. We also contacted people who were listed as the owners - but in many cases were no longer responsible for the sites. With some, we were able to contact the developers behind the sites. Others just didn't respond. Basically - no one in the NHS or DoH knows who manages the thousands of .nhs.uk websites. We did our best to contact individual site owners and, where that was impossible, alerted the government directly. Hope that clears it up.
  - Angostura 13y ago
    Did you ever manage to get in touch with the breastmilk site? The campaign still seems to be active and has a Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/209991399039700/posts/687410607964441 https://www.facebook.com/209991399039700/posts/6874106079644...
    - edent 13y ago
      I was in contact with the people who claimed to be responsible. They were unable to find out who actually runs the site.
raesene3 13y ago
An interesting point, but if interpreted by the wrong person, using wpscan (which makes a load of requests to the site) could be considered dubious under the CMA (I definitely wouldn't run in against a site which I wasn't authorised to test) From what I know vulnerability scanning (which is essentially what wpscan does) is a bit of a grey area under UK law. It's been likened to someone "rattling the windows" of a house. They may be doing it with the intention of notifying the owner that he's left his house unlocked, or they may be doing it to attempt to gain unauthorised access.. The analogy isn't perfect but it's one I'd step carefully on.

by edent 13y ago

jloughry 13y ago

We spoke to the overall owner of the sites and they did not object to myself or the magazine publishing this information. That's...astonishing.

edent 13y ago
We're slightly less litigious this side of the pond... :-)
- polymatter 13y ago
  I'm UKian and I'm astonished. Having worked in the UK Civil Service, sounds to me the person making this decision didn't know what it meant and that it was an actual security issue. Probably they thought it was sort of idly interesting, like speculating how many office computers are still beige. Not that you were listing sites with trusted nhs.uk domains that appear to be easy to hack.
  - edent 13y ago
    I can assure you that we made it abundantly clear how bad the problem was - including sending link, screenshots, etc. Had phone calls with them where they did sound genuinely concerned. Sadly, it didn't transform into action.

danielweber 13y ago

I saw a screenshot of an XSS injection. You don't know that you haven't altered data. You think you haven't, but you don't know it. I congratulate you for talking to the owners before publication, however.

buro9 13y ago

> We spoke to the overall owner of the sites What do you mean by this? In the article you state: > in many cases there is simply no way to contact the website owners Do you simply refer to the owner of the parent domain name?

edent 13y ago
We spoke to HSCIC who manage .nhs.uk. We also spoke to senior civil servants in the Department of Health. We also contacted people who were listed as the owners - but in many cases were no longer responsible for the sites. With some, we were able to contact the developers behind the sites. Others just didn't respond. Basically - no one in the NHS or DoH knows who manages the thousands of .nhs.uk websites. We did our best to contact individual site owners and, where that was impossible, alerted the government directly. Hope that clears it up.
- Angostura 13y ago
  Did you ever manage to get in touch with the breastmilk site? The campaign still seems to be active and has a Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/209991399039700/posts/687410607964441 https://www.facebook.com/209991399039700/posts/6874106079644...
  - edent 13y ago
    I was in contact with the people who claimed to be responsible. They were unable to find out who actually runs the site.

raesene3 13y ago

An interesting point, but if interpreted by the wrong person, using wpscan (which makes a load of requests to the site) could be considered dubious under the CMA (I definitely wouldn't run in against a site which I wasn't authorised to test) From what I know vulnerability scanning (which is essentially what wpscan does) is a bit of a grey area under UK law. It's been likened to someone "rattling the windows" of a house. They may be doing it with the intention of notifying the owner that he's left his house unlocked, or they may be doing it to attempt to gain unauthorised access.. The analogy isn't perfect but it's one I'd step carefully on.