870
I wonder if this was made by AI or a shit programmer (gregtech.eu)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Hack has at least two definitions in a computing context.

  1. A nifty trick or shortcut that is useful. "Check out this hack to increase your productivity."
  2. Accessing something you shouldn't. "They hacked into the database."

A lot of times they sort of get used in conjunction to describe interesting ways to gain access to secure systems, but using it to describe accessing insecure things you shouldn't is still a valid usage of the phrase.

That said I definitely wanna see the company face charges for this, this is insane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yeah, if I leave my house door wide open for a few weeks and I get robbed, it's still burglary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Terrible analogy. A webserver is not at all like a door. It doesn't block or allow traffic to and from your file system.

    A web server is more like a receptionist. It handles requests. "Can I have your basic catalog?" "Certainly, here you go."

    "Can I get this item from your basic catalog?" "Certainly."

    "I don't see it in your catalog, but my buddy said he got this other item from you. Can I have this other item too?" "Absolutely."

    "Can I borrow your stapler?" Sure. "How about a pad of paper?" "Of Course". "Can I just have the contents of your supply closet?" "Here you go." "How about your accounting files, can I get those?" "No problem!" "How about your entire customer list?" "Consider it done!"

    When you hire a receptionist and specifically tell them to give customers anything they request, that's entirely on you. You have to at least make a token effort to restrict access to only authorized users before you can even claim that a particular user was unauthorized.

    This wasn't burglary. This was putting up signs that say "come in" and labeling everything in your house with "free" stickers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading people's reactions to this. And if it was a business instead of your house and it was customer data you weren't protecting you should still be in trouble too. It's like people think only one side can be in the wrong in this or that because the data wasn't secured and in the public that gives them free reign to post it everywhere. I wonder how those people would feel if their addresses were leaked. Afterall, if you're a homeowner your name is attached to the property and is publicly accessible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    @SpaceCowboy @JackbyDev In a legal context there's also the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The computer abuse and fraud act defines hacking as accessing data or systems you are not authorized to access. A better analogy is putting your journal in a public library and getting mad when somone reads it.I'm not saying what these ass holes did was right, I'm saying that the company weakened their legal position by not protecting the data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Terrible analogy. You have permission to read books in a library.

    Forgetting to lock your door isn't granting permission to people enter your house, and it doesn't grant people permission to take your valuables. It may be neglectful to leave your door unlocked, but it doesn't imply granting permission to enter your house.

    Same goes with computer security. Leaving your computer insecure may be neglectful, but it does not imply someone has permission to take your data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    A better analogy is putting your journal in a public library and getting mad when someone reads it.

    Good analogy indeed. I'd go one step further and add: it's like promising others you'll keep their diary safe, then putting it in a public library, to then get mad when someone reads it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, this was a data leak. The word "hack" has legal implications and shifts the blame away from the company and onto the individual who discovered the leak.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It can be both. The company can be at fault for not keeping something secure while the people who steal the data are at fault for stealing data. Data leaks and hacks are not mutually exclusive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't disagree with your main point, but I'm not sure it's really even "stealing", as that means to take without permission. In this case, the storage permissions were configured so that the files were publicly available to everyone, so everyone had permission to access them.

    Semantics though. It's still unethical to access that data, even if it's not technically stealing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent