this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
411 points (98.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54300 readers
372 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The FBI sleeps when libraries burn

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 165 points 3 days ago (4 children)

This person could be damaging corporate infrastructure but he goes after internet archive

[–] griefstricken@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

I have to say that the way they are advertising "HAVE I BEEN PWNED" makes this look like law enforcement selling cures to problems they create. The owner has that CIA front company type CV. It makes my head shudder uncontrollably. 🐙🌕🤕

[–] huginn@feddit.it 43 points 3 days ago (4 children)

This guy is outing the archive for terrible security posture by bringing attention to it because they received disclosures and did not fix them.

Don't get shit twisted - he's the hero here. IA fucked up and has been vulnerable to manipulation by any number of corporate or national actors this entire time.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 46 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If they were really "the hero", they'd follow the bare minimum of responsible disclosure best practices, and allow 90 days between privately alerting them of the issue and going public with it. Two weeks is absurd.

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

90 days to cycle private tokens/keys?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

90 days is just the standard timeframe for responsible disclosure. And normally that's just a baseline with additional time being given if there's genuine communication going on and signs they're addressing the problem.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

90 days is standard for "you're code is fucked when someone presses this..."; if the issue is Dave left the keys in the parking lot and someone copied them, two weeks is more than enough time for them to recieve the notice, create a ticket to rotate the keys and a ticket to trigger an investigation (gotta document anytime an org fucks up so it doesn't happen again, right?). Maybe I'm over simplifying it though, I don't know how their org operates.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

I agree in general, but

Maybe I'm over simplifying it though, I don't know how their org operates.

This is exactly why just sticking to the 90 day standard is better. For the supposed security researcher it's a CYA move at worst.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 63 points 3 days ago

If this was genuinely done out of love I could understand but due to the legal battles the internet archive is currently being dragged through, I harbor suspicion of their intent.

[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You don't leak a passwords database publicly on the Internet in good faith.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not necessarily the same hacker.

[–] griefstricken@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

It's not uncommon for hackers to sell cures for problems they cause. This includes law enforcement, which can have broader goals like promoting their own cybersecurity outfits, even just promoting deoendency on HIBP if it's a fed thing would be useful here, making the joke they left on the page telling people to check out the site itself suspect. The internet archive is a large and beloved outlet for piracy and depaywalling, maybe the security enhancements being billed to them could help the industry bring them to heel a bit. Just speculating.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You sure about that, or are you hypothesizing?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 11 points 3 days ago

There's never certainty when talking about hackers...

That's verbatim the content of the email and the email hack does not appear to be malicious (unlike the ddos or the password breach)

It's more likely that this is 3 different groups than it is a single group.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 47 points 3 days ago

I mean this person seems to be not doing it maliciously. As they say, if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Pushing archive to improve their security is great for everyone. As long as this person doesn't do anything actually malicious, they're in the clear as far as I'm concerned.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago

The hackers are mostly not okay. Fucking bootlickers.