←back to thread

122 points waldopat | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
toddmorey ◴[] No.44738229[source]
"The vulnerability we discovered was remarkably simple to exploit - by providing only a non-secret app_id value to undocumented registration and email verification endpoints." So you could sign yourself up as editor / collaborator on any app once you knew the app's ID.

Jeez, that's sloppy. My colleague in 2000 discovered you could browse any account on his bank's website by just changing the (sequential!) account IDs in the URL. In a lot of ways we've made great strides in security over the last 25 years... and in many ways, we haven't.

replies(4): >>44738468 #>>44738495 #>>44739179 #>>44743468 #
srcport56445 ◴[] No.44738495[source]
Have we really made "progress" ? Even in 2000 I doubt people were allowed to walk into a bank and look at everyone's account details.
replies(2): >>44738897 #>>44742248 #
1. dpoloncsak ◴[] No.44738897[source]
...How long did it take a transfer to settle in the 2000s
replies(3): >>44740504 #>>44740792 #>>44741073 #
2. ◴[] No.44740504[source]
3. manquer ◴[] No.44740792[source]
Well…

cash was and is still instant.

When doing large enough transactions that makes cash cumbersome, the slowness is a feature not a bug. We would want multiple reviews and time before it settled.

The value of $100 bill was much higher in 2000 and in 1969 when it became the highest denomination in circulation, so you could transact much higher value with a “wad of cash” than today.

Before 1969 we had bills up to $10,000 for a reason, they served like a credit note/T-Bill from the government, they were no longer needed after banking became robust enough for Cheques/P-Notes etc to replace them.

Paper Cash or Gold/silver coins before them are well understood solved problems, with thousands of years of experiments on size, security ,seigniorage and so on.

4. toast0 ◴[] No.44741073[source]
Wires have been fast, during banking hours, for a long time. Expensive, though.