←back to thread

561 points bearsyankees | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.532s | source
Show context
mtlynch ◴[] No.43965781[source]
This is a pretty confusing writeup.

>First things first, let’s log in. They only use OTP-based sign in (just text a code to your phone number), so I went to check the response from triggering the one-time password. BOOM – the OTP is directly in the response, meaning anyone’s account can be accessed with just their phone number.

They don't explain it, but I'm assuming that the API is something like api.cercadating.com/otp/<phone-number>, so you can guess phone numbers and get OTP codes even if you don't control the phone numbers.

>The script basically just counted how many valid users it saw; if after 1,000 consecutive IDs it found none, then it stopped. So there could be more out there (Cerca themselves claimed 10k users in the first week), but I was able to find 6,117 users, 207 who had put their ID information in, and 19 who claimed to be Yale students.

I don't know if the author realizes how risky this is, but this is basically what weev did to breach AT&T, and he went to prison for it.[0] Granted, that was a much bigger company and a larger breach, but I still wouldn't boast publicly about exploiting a security hole and accessing the data of thousands of users without authorization.

I'm not judging the morality, as I think there should be room for security researchers to raise alarms, but I don't know if the author realizes that the law is very much biased against security researchers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security#AT&T/iPad_emai...

replies(2): >>43965949 #>>43966116 #
tptacek ◴[] No.43965949[source]
Read the original complaint in the Auernheimer case. Prosecutors had (extensive) intent evidence that is unlikely to exist here. The defendants in that case were also accused of disclosing the underlying PII, which is not something that appears to have happened here.
replies(2): >>43966026 #>>43966961 #
1. mtlynch ◴[] No.43966026[source]
Yeah, I agree Auernheimer was a much more attractive target for prosecution, but do you think this student is legally safe in what they're doing here?
replies(1): >>43966047 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.43966047[source]
I would personally not scrape the endpoint to collect statistics and inform the severity estimation, but I'm a lot more risk averse than most. But prosecution of good-faith security research is disfavored, so as long as you don't do anything to breach the assumption of good faith (as defendants in the trial you mentioned repeatedly did) I think you're probably fine.

The bigger thing is just that there's no actual win in scraping here. It doesn't make the vulnerability report any more interesting; it just reads like they're trying to make the whole thing newsier. Some (very small) risk, zero reward.