'Impossible-to-hack' security turns out to be no security (opens in new tab)

Some powerful people subscribe to the idea that "if I (or the law) says don't touch it, it's secure". This attitude was on full display a little over three years ago in Missouri. https://missouriindependent.com/2021/10/14/missouri-governor...

Technically speaking if there's nothing to break, it is unbreakable right? Also if you change the law about some crime, you don't have a crime anymore...

Dang this is real life. “We didn’t used to do it but..”

> my employer recently bought another outfit that does that does just that [leaves passwords in cleartext], and fixing it is not a near term option

Could you expand on why not? I can't think of a good reason why this isn't a relatively quick fix. What's the blocker?

Personally, I find the tone of the article appropriate for the response received. The first email clearly set the tone as cordial and friendly while still being urgent. The response was in a clearly adversarial tone. So the prompter adjusted their tone accordingly.

It wasn't necessary to match tones with the person whom wanted to be uncharitable, but it definitely feels more human to me, which is who the writing is for: humans. I would have been fine with an info dump, but I enjoy turnabout as much as any other fan of fair play.

The author is not acting in a professional role here.

He, in his own time, discovered a pretty serious exposure of information and politely informed them. They decided to not be polite in return. He responded in the same tone as them.

There was never any professional obligation, nor any obligation for the author to inform them of their breach at all, nor was there any obligation to give them time to notify clients before publication. Those are all courtesies.

This man didn't choose team troll, he responded to team troll in kind.

Not a journalist or a reporter, posts aren't meant to be professional. The only reason I even write any of my posts is because companies DO NOT disclose incidents at all, so I have to do it for them.

I was also ready to chalk this up to "Yet another security researcher needs to learn how to play well with others..." but the moronic and indigent response from "Sean" makes it clear who's wrong here.

Imagine an alternate universe where "Sean" wasn't so aggressively stupid, and instead replied: "Thanks, JayeLTee, we took the database down while we do an audit. We don't think there were any access, and we would rather you not go public about the findings, but it will take us time to check. Please hold off on your publication until [DATE] and we will be in touch."

There. That didn't take much effort! But, no, "Sean" chose belligerence and threats rather than professionalism. I don't know what is wrong with people who just seem to default to "bad attitude" in their communications.

why is the author obligated to use a professional tone?

Concur. Tone comes off as "toxic manboy". Not sure why the author chose that tone. I would not hire them for their security services just yet, no matter how big a genius they are. Maybe once they understand the world is made of people, not rational actors.

Even in a professional setting, you are not obligated to coddle aggressive stupidity. That's how we end up in a world where nobody says what they mean, everything is just BS on top of BS, and nothing improves. Being direct, being honest, and being accurate are critically important in professional technical work, and while it's not necessary to be antagonistic, it is completely reasonable and socially acceptable to respond in kind to the energy you get. People who are aggressively stupid do not get a pass.

The author is more professional than the sean was, and conveys the correct amount of disgust we should all hold for this company and it's leadership.

The point of the essay was to be disrespectful of the CEO. Slightly less disrespectful than the CEO was, so IMO he still holds onto the high ground of ethics.

Please do choose team troll. The correct response to someone being a shitter, is not always to kill them with kindness. A lot of the time it is, but this time, I'm clearly on the authors side. He tried twice to be kind, was ignored and then insulted. When really he was owed a thank you, not to be disrespected.

The tone doesn't have to be professional. Not everybody owes you professional courtesy, especially when you're giving away personal information on your customers.

The tone is perfect here, you don’t have to play nice with people who are not nice to you.

You only get the benefit of professionalism if you act like one.

Your comment is unprofessional, the CEO in question deserves a lot more vitriol frankly.

If I read the article correctly step 6 was using data from a previous dump to access files now.

So say the dumped data contained the URL of a file and you couldn't get the URL now (due to step 3) but you can still download the actual file.

TBH it sounds like he exfil'ed / downloaded the database before reporting.

Step 6 happened because the CEO in his hubris, decided it would be in his best interests to threaten someone instead of being greatful.

Additionally, had the CEO responded appropriately and followed the standard methodology of all reasonable bug bounty programs, it would have included a request for the researcher to verify the fix and that there are no additional related bugs or defects with the current patch.

You noticed that the email implies the security has been perfected. Did you also note that it would be unethical for a professional to blindly convey that false belief.

I imagine the conversation between the CEO and his reports included something about "it's no biggie, the passwords were hashed using bcrypt, that's like irreversible encryption" without contextualizing that and mentioning that plaintext auth tokens were also exposed.

> Would he have not disclosed it if they offered hush money? We won’t know, for his case I hope not. In any case - what was he expecting?

A bog-standard responsible disclosure that any tech CEO should either be familiar with or have someone at hand that is, as is clearly communicated in that e-mail.

Both e-mails are OP reaching out to help this company out, the first fixing the vulnerability, the second giving them a chance for compliance / potential regulatory aspects they might want to follow. It's not on random people reporting security vulnerabilities to tutor random companies on this and both behaviors (non-responsiveness, then hostility) of this CEO, despite being sadly common, are actively harmful if you want to get productive security reports in the future. (And the company unilaterally signing up for bug bounty programs is rather irrelevant for independent researchers as well if they have no interest in participating in those.)

I just got offered to discuss a "token of appreciation" by another company that included deleting public posts and signing NDAs. I replied saying I don't accept bribes. If that's clear enough for you.

And I didn't say "I will disclose it or you can do X". I asked follow up questions as I always do. Related to intent on notifications to regulators or clients so I can delay my report until the company does their notifications if that is their intent. I've done this multiple times for multiple companies, some I delayed the post for 3-4 months.

I was actually trying to be nice to the company by not doing a disclosure before them, up until this point this was just like every other interaction I have. I sent the information, the server got closed and no one got back to me. None of my communications warranted the reply I got back from this.

Is it hacking when there is no "breach?"

If I serve a file with info I didn't intend for the world to see at example.com/secret and you access it, did you commit a crime? Clearly no.

Given that, you have no way to even know if the data which was available publicly contained any private information. This guy is doing a fine public service, and any company he helps should pay him for saving their asses.

OP here, the one who found the exposed data.

Not sure if you read my 2 emails to the company but I would say I was polite to them and was met with accusations of harassment and straight up lies.

Don't expect me to pat you in the back if you come at me with such claims when I simply alerted you of a security issue.

Agree. "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole!" Best case scenario, CEO just got an annoying distraction that was a credible enough threat they had to waste time investigating. Worst case they had a breach and someone is extorting or hacking them. Some grace on the part of the researcher is warranted IMO, despite the amateur handling by the CEO. No one looks good here.