A security researcher discovered a critical vulnerability in a major New Zealand service provider's website. By manipulating a forgotten password request, they were able to inject arbitrary JavaScript code that executed when an administrator viewed the request in their backend system. This cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability allowed the researcher to gain access to administrator cookies and potentially full control of the provider's systems. Although they demonstrated the vulnerability by merely changing the administrator's password, they highlighted the potential for far more damaging actions. The researcher responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to the provider, who promptly patched the flaw and awarded them a bug bounty.
A New Zealand security researcher, operating under the pseudonym "Mr. Bruh," meticulously documented a series of escalating vulnerabilities discovered within a prominent, albeit unnamed, New Zealand service provider. This account details a concerning lapse in security practices, starting with a seemingly innocuous exposed .git directory on a publicly accessible server. This directory, a crucial component of the Git version control system, contained the complete source code for the service provider's website, including sensitive configuration files. Mr. Bruh exploited this initial vulnerability to gain access to database credentials, effectively granting him unauthorized access to the provider's core database.
The researcher further exploited weaknesses within the system, leveraging these initial credentials to escalate his privileges. He discovered inadequately protected internal APIs, which, due to insufficient authorization checks, allowed him to perform actions beyond the scope of a regular user. This included manipulating account details and accessing internal tools intended solely for authorized personnel. The compromised APIs exposed customer data, including personally identifiable information, further exacerbating the severity of the breach.
Mr. Bruh’s investigation also revealed a troubling lack of security logging and monitoring. This deficiency meant that his actions went largely undetected, allowing him to explore the system's vulnerabilities over an extended period without triggering any alarms. The lack of proper logging hindered the service provider's ability to track the extent of the breach and identify the compromised data.
Throughout the process, Mr. Bruh meticulously documented his findings, including screenshots and technical details of the vulnerabilities he encountered. He emphasized the systemic nature of these security flaws, highlighting not just isolated incidents but a pervasive disregard for basic security practices. After responsibly disclosing the vulnerabilities to the affected service provider through their official channels, Mr. Bruh waited an appropriate period for them to rectify the issues. Following this period of responsible disclosure, he published a detailed account of his findings, redacting any information that could further compromise the provider or its customers, with the intent of educating the wider community about the importance of robust security measures. He concludes by expressing his disappointment with the service provider's overall security posture, emphasizing the potential for far more damaging exploitation by malicious actors.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43466355
HN commenters discuss the ethical implications of the author's actions, questioning whether responsible disclosure was truly attempted given the short timeframe and lack of clear communication with the affected company. Several express skepticism about the "major" provider claim, suggesting it might be smaller than portrayed. Some doubt the technical details, pointing out potential flaws in the exploit description. Others debate the legality of the actions under New Zealand law, with some suggesting potential CFAA violations, despite the author's New Zealand origin. A few commenters offer alternative explanations for the observed behavior, proposing it might be a misconfiguration rather than a vulnerability. The overall sentiment is critical of the author's approach, emphasizing the potential for harm and the importance of responsible disclosure practices.
The Hacker News post titled "How I pwned a major New Zealand service provider" (linking to https://mrbruh.com/majorprovider/) generated a significant discussion with a variety of comments. Several commenters focused on the ethical implications and responsible disclosure practices of the author.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the perceived recklessness of the author's actions. Some argued that escalating access to the point of root, even unintentionally, crossed a significant ethical line, especially given the potential for widespread disruption. They emphasized the importance of responsible disclosure and suggested that the author should have stopped at demonstrating the initial vulnerability and reported it immediately. Others countered that the author's curiosity and desire to understand the full extent of the vulnerability were understandable, especially given the provider's seemingly dismissive response.
Another key point of discussion was the security posture of the affected provider. Several commenters expressed concern about the apparent lack of basic security measures, such as proper input sanitization and access controls. They questioned the competency of the provider's security team and speculated on the potential consequences of such lax security practices.
Several users also debated the legality of the author's actions. While some argued that the author's actions likely violated New Zealand law, others pointed out the potential ambiguity of the relevant legislation and the difficulty of proving intent.
The comment section also included technical discussions regarding the specific vulnerabilities exploited by the author. Some users dissected the technical details of the exploits, while others offered suggestions for mitigating similar vulnerabilities.
A recurring theme was the contrast between the author's perceived youthful enthusiasm and the provider's apparent apathy. Many commenters expressed sympathy for the author's situation, while criticizing the provider's dismissive response.
Finally, several commenters discussed the potential consequences for the author, ranging from legal repercussions to reputational damage. The discussion highlighted the complex ethical and legal landscape surrounding security research and responsible disclosure.