this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
2940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Exploit. The system worked as intended, just without a rate limit. A hack would be relying on a vulnerability in the software to make it not function as programmed.

It's the difference between finding a angle in a game world that causes your character to climb steeper than it should, vs rewriting memory locations to no-clip through everything. One causes the system to act in a way that it otherwise wouldn't (SQL injections, etc) -- the other, is using the system exactly as it was programmed.

Downloading videos from YouTube isn't "Hacking" YouTube. Even though it's using the API in a way it wasn't intended.

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Exploiting is hacking, quit being pedantic.

[–] ___@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

A system fault is not the same as a vulnerability. These would have different baseline CVSS 3.1 scores, with the temporal and environmental reducing over time. A medium/low at best for a public endpoint exposing PII.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

That’s like saying going through someone’s trash is breaking and entering.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sure. Except you're wrong and have absolutely idea of what people in this community say about things. Let me be a dick and literally googz this for you and find an embarassing answer because you couldn't do it yourself.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So your googling proved him right. What's embarrassing about being right?

[–] Guest_User@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They gained unauthorized access. From that guys definition that is a hack, no an exploit

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But they are using a loophole to gain sensitive data. They did not gain unauthorised access to the system.

[–] Guest_User@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

They absolutely gained unauthorized access to the data. Their access was not intended or sanctioned. If it was intended to be public and accessible like it was, this wouldn't be a story and they wouldn't have locked down the access.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago

Hacking is the entire process including figuring out if something is or is not rare limited

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 0 points 4 months ago

A missing rate limit is a vulnerability, or a weakness, depending on the definition. You're playing smart without having an idea of what you're talking about. Here you go:

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/799.html

YouTube videos are public, and as such it's not really hacking. If you were able to download private videos, for example, it would be a vulnerability like "Improper Access Control". It does not matter in the least whether you use an "exploit" in your definition (which is wrong) or "just increment the video ID".

The result is a breach of confidentiality, and as such this is to be classified as a "hack".