4 ms·

I cannot really give a good explanation, but I feel like this isn't the whole story. They make it sound like it isn't a big deal, but in the post detailing the

by gnur 12y ago

I cannot really give a good explanation, but I feel like this isn't the whole story. They make it sound like it isn't a big deal, but in the post detailing the "breach" there was some talk about people stating that they have seen other peoples session in progress. If their story on this page is true that really should have been impossible.

Kiro 12y ago
I don't think the problem seeing other peoples' sessions has anything to do with this or a breach at all. It's more likely a problem with their software. EDIT: Sorry, completely misunderstood you but leaving this here anyway.
jacquesm 12y ago
Nice reminder to patch all your servers, not just your 'active' ones (can't believe they didn't do that). This totally misses out on 'motive', that mail was far to cleverly crafted to be just some drive-by hacker that targeted browserstack for the fun of it. Good they did a write-up though, so points for them. It must be very hard to draw the line on transparency when you write a document like this, I tend to think that it is better to spill all the beans, even the uncomfortable parts but for business reasons they may decide to keep some of the information to themselves. "Both the passwords mentioned, ‘nakula’ and ‘c0stac0ff33’, were indeed in use a couple of years ago during our prototyping phase, and thus were present in the old prototype machine that was hacked. ‘nakula’ was previously our VNC password, and was hashed. However, unlike the hash used for the user passwords, this hash is much weaker. This was due to a limitation in VNC protocol, and we had overcome this liability by regenerating a new password for every session, and thus ‘nakula’ has not been in use for years. ‘c0stac0ff33’ was one of our system user passwords on the prototype machine, before we moved to key-based authentication." Still points very strongly to a bad leaver. No outsider would have that info, I'd be digging through my older personnel records for suspects at this stage. Still waiting for that updated postmortem from http://www.codespaces.com/ http://www.codespaces.com/

by gnur 12y ago

Kiro 12y ago

I don't think the problem seeing other peoples' sessions has anything to do with this or a breach at all. It's more likely a problem with their software. EDIT: Sorry, completely misunderstood you but leaving this here anyway.

jacquesm 12y ago

Nice reminder to patch all your servers, not just your 'active' ones (can't believe they didn't do that). This totally misses out on 'motive', that mail was far to cleverly crafted to be just some drive-by hacker that targeted browserstack for the fun of it. Good they did a write-up though, so points for them. It must be very hard to draw the line on transparency when you write a document like this, I tend to think that it is better to spill all the beans, even the uncomfortable parts but for business reasons they may decide to keep some of the information to themselves. "Both the passwords mentioned, ‘nakula’ and ‘c0stac0ff33’, were indeed in use a couple of years ago during our prototyping phase, and thus were present in the old prototype machine that was hacked. ‘nakula’ was previously our VNC password, and was hashed. However, unlike the hash used for the user passwords, this hash is much weaker. This was due to a limitation in VNC protocol, and we had overcome this liability by regenerating a new password for every session, and thus ‘nakula’ has not been in use for years. ‘c0stac0ff33’ was one of our system user passwords on the prototype machine, before we moved to key-based authentication." Still points very strongly to a bad leaver. No outsider would have that info, I'd be digging through my older personnel records for suspects at this stage. Still waiting for that updated postmortem from http://www.codespaces.com/ http://www.codespaces.com/