Comment by emidln
Comment by emidln 3 days ago
If you can be prosecuted for guessing urls you can be prosecuted for sending garbage data in a way you know will be uploaded to a remote system.
Comment by emidln 3 days ago
If you can be prosecuted for guessing urls you can be prosecuted for sending garbage data in a way you know will be uploaded to a remote system.
They lost it because they charged in the wrong jurisdiction.
Also come on, you can't reasonable describe that case as being about "guessing urls". It's the associated chat logs that really make the case.
You think criminalizing guessing URLs is unreasonable.
What about guessing passwords? Should someone be prosecuted for just trying to bruteforce them until one works?
Guessing passwords is an attempt to access privileged information you have no right to access, and could not otherwise access without bypassing security measures.
Guessing a URL is an attempt to access (potentially) privileged information which was not secured or authenticated to begin with.
A password is a lock you have to break. An unlisted URL is a sticky note that says "private" on the front of a 40" screen. It's literally impossible for that information to stay private. Someone will see it eventually.
Guessing URLs is equivalent to ordering an item not on the menu in a restaurant. The request may or may not be granted.
This same logic is easily extended to SQL injection, or just about any other software vulnerability.
How do you propose the line should be drawn?
>How do you propose the line should be drawn?
there is a line drawn for such things. a fuzzy line. see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
same as this famous case, in which a supreme court justice is asked "what is and is not pronographie" - of course he realizes if he defines "what is not" people are going to make all kinds of porn right on the boundary (see: japanese pronographies where they do the filthiest imaginable things yet censor the sensitive books, making it SFW in the eyes of their law). this judge avoided that.
Anyways, parallel to the fact that filthy pronographies can be made a gorillion different ways, a "hack" may be manifested also a gorillion different ways. Itemizing such ways would be pointless. And also in the same vein, strictly defining a black and white line "this is legal, this is not" would cause hackers to freely exploit and cheese the legal aspect as hard as possible.. businesses and data miners and all these people would also freely exploit it, at massive scale and with massive funding, since it is officially legal. Thusly it must be kept an ambiguous definition as with pronographies, as with many things
Do you think the current line, where it's based on you "knowingly" exceeding your access or deliberately damaging the operation of a computer system, is excessively vague?
The question can be easily inverted for the other side: if any user accidentally damages a service's functionality in any way, can they always be criminally liable? Can this be used by companies with no security or thought put into them whatsoever, where they just sue anyone who sees their unsecured data? Where should the line be drawn?
To me, this is subjective, but the URL situation has a different feel than something like SQL injection. URLs are just references to certain resources - if it's left unsecured, the default assumption should be that any URL is public, can be seen by anyone, and can be manipulated in any ways. The exception is websites that put keys and passwords into their URL parameters, but if we're talking solely about the address part, it seems "public" to me. On the other hand, something like wedging your way into an SQL database looks like an intrusion on something private, that wasn't meant to be seen. It's like picking up a $100 bill of the street vs. picking even the flimsiest, most symbolic of locks to get to a $100 bill you can see in a box.
Cyber attacks are consentual, digital engineering is the only discipline where we have complete mastery of the media. If you make a system (or authorize it) what someone does with it is your fault.
Passwords are different from URLs because URLs are basically public, whereas passwords aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, this is not 1995. Everyone who is in the industry providing IT services is supposed to know that basic security measures are necessary. The physical analogy would be, walking through an unlocked and unmarked door that faces the street in a busy city, versus picking a lock on that door and then walking through it.
> Everyone who is in the industry providing IT services is supposed to know that basic security measures are necessary.
And everyone who doesn't have wool for brains knows to not carry large rolls of cash around in a bad part of town, but we can still hold the mugger at fault.
Nevertheless, URLs are as public as door knobs. If someone is merely observing that a door is unlocked and they have not stolen anything, they have done nothing wrong. People being prosecuted over discovery and disclosure of horrible design flaws based on URLs should never be prosecuted. If they use the information to actually cause damage, we can be in agreement that they are responsible for the damage.
It depends on stuff.
Sometimes a URL can have a password in it.
But when it's just a sequential-ish ID number, you have to accept that people will change the ID number. If you want security, do something else. No prosecuting.
Try it once to see if it works, you'll probably be fine.
Find out that it works, and then proceed to look up various other people? Whether you're fine depends entirely on whether or not you genuinely believe that you're supposed to be accessing that stuff.
I think criminalising both is unreasonable, what you do with the URL you accessed or the password you guessed however is different.
As a strictly logical assertion, I do not agree. Guessing URLs is crafting new types of interactions with a server. The built in surveillance uploader is still only accessing the server in the way it has already been explicitly authorized. Trying to tie some nebulous TOS to a situation that the manufacturer has deliberately created reeks of the same type of website-TOS shenanigans courts have (actually!) struck down.
As a pragmatic matter, I do completely understand where you're coming from (my second paragraph). In a sense, if one can get to the point of being convicted they have been kind of fortunate - it means they didn't kill themselves under the crushing pressure of a team of federal persecutors whose day job is making your life miserable.
>(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
If your goal is to deliberately "poison" their data as suggested before, it's kind of obvious that you are knowingly causing the transmission of information in an effort to intentionally cause damage to a protected computer without authorization to cause such damage.
>Trying to tie some nebulous TOS to a situation that the manufacturer has deliberately created reeks of the same type of website-TOS shenanigans courts have (actually!) struck down.
This has very little to do with the TOS though, unless the TOS specifically states that you are in fact allowed to deliberately damage their systems.
And no, causing damage to a computer does not refer to hackers turning computers into bombs. But rather specifically situations like this.
A computer being supplied with false data which it then stores is not damaging the computer - hence there being a provision about fraud. But for this case it's not fraud either, as the person supplying the data is not obtaining anything of value from the false data.
>the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
Deliberately inserting bad data to mess with their analytics does in fact fit that definition.
It's a legal term, has nothing to do with technical protections.
Practically any device connected to the internet is a "protected computer". The only case I can think of where the defendant prevailed on their argument that the computer in question was not a "protected computer" was US v Kane. In that case the court held that an offline Las Vegas video poker machine was not sufficiently connected to interstate commerce to qualify as a "protected computer".
The DoJ lost the case they went after for someone guessing URLs.