Grendel

@scrubbles

Don’t worry it’s completely different now. Martha retired so now Mary Ellen sends the emails.

@vrek

@SkabySkalywag

It’s comments like these that make me wish that fedi had some kind of downvote system.

@cm0002

@Wizard_Pope oh yeah they do that for everyone. It’s a safety feature called puny code.

people were using weird chars to impersonate well known domains for phishing, so if you register a domain using unusual or mixed language characters it renders it as puny code to prevent spoofing.

@tourist @Wizard_Pope

after I discovered egyptian hieroglyphs have unicode chars bought 𓅃.com as a joke last year.

even better a friend bought
𓂺.com

@SpaceCowboy

Then how do I know what I am not allowed to access?

In this specific case there was no (formal) indication that the data was out of bounds.

I can’t put 10 pdf files in a web dir and claim 5 are public and 5 are private, then charge you with a crime for viewing them.

You can’t have “unauthorized access” when there’s no authorization at all

@iii

Yeah the internet by design is a public space, and we must be responsible and treat it as such when handling sensative data.

Again, it was very wrong for people to take that data and especially to post like that.

The company also has to do their part and produce at least some kind of barrier to the data.

Even using UUIDs and making sure the data wasn’t query-able would have been something.

@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.

@01189998819991197253 @ConstantPain

Security isn’t binary, it’s a spectrum. You apply the level of security that is appropriate for each situation.

Of course it’s *possible* to brute force it, but by the same logic you could brute force jwt tokens, or api keys, or even ssl certs.

It’s literally *impossible* to apply “max security” to everything, so you have to prioritize.

What happened was unconscionable, but insisting uuid are mathematically breakable isn’t helpful, and can make it worse.

@EmilyIsTrans @lena

sounds like firebase itself is a hack.

I’m honestly embarrassed by my fellow devs more often than not these days.

What the fuck happened to craftsmanship? Or taking pride in your work?

oh right, techbro startup culture garbage ended it.

@Vince @KickMeElmo malbolge is computationally intense to generate. It’s self-modifying, is ternary instead of binary, and after each operation the next opcode gets replaced by its mod 94 value.

It’s like the insane sudoku of coding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge?wprov=sfla1

@Schmoo @camr_on

Well hey at least React is known to be really secure with sensible package management.

Oh wait I spelled Rust wrong.

@VoidJuiceConcentrate @maris

Right?

pretty sure there are more possible chess positions than atoms in the earth (universe?), so even if every atom of our planet were converted to transistors there’d be no way to fully represent all possibilities.