Google has agreed to acquire cybersecurity startup Wiz for a reported $32 billion. This deal, expected to close in 2025, marks a significant investment by Google in cloud security and will bolster its Google Cloud Platform offerings. Wiz specializes in agentless cloud security, offering vulnerability assessment and other protective measures. The acquisition price tag represents a substantial premium over Wiz's previous valuation, highlighting the growing importance of cloud security in the tech industry.
A misconfigured Amazon S3 bucket exposed over 86,000 medical records and personally identifiable information (PII) belonging to users of the nurse staffing platform eShift. The exposed data included names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, medical licenses, certifications, and vaccination records. This data breach highlights the continued risk of unsecured cloud storage and the potential consequences for sensitive personal information. eShift, dubbed the "Uber for nurses," provides on-demand healthcare staffing solutions. While the company has since secured the bucket, the extent of the damage and potential for identity theft and fraud remains a serious concern.
HN commenters were largely critical of Eshyft's security practices, calling the exposed data "a treasure trove for identity thieves" and expressing concern over the sensitive nature of the information. Some pointed out the irony of a cybersecurity-focused company being vulnerable to such a basic misconfiguration. Others questioned the competence of Eshyft's leadership and engineering team, with one commenter stating, "This isn't rocket science." Several commenters highlighted the recurring nature of these types of breaches and the need for stronger regulations and consequences for companies that fail to adequately protect user data. A few users debated the efficacy of relying on cloud providers like AWS for security, emphasizing the shared responsibility model.
Azure API Connections, while offering convenient integration between services, pose a significant security risk due to their over-permissive default configurations. The post demonstrates how easily a compromised low-privilege Azure account can exploit these broadly scoped permissions to escalate access and extract sensitive data, including secrets from linked Key Vaults and other connected services. Essentially, API Connections grant access not just to the specified API, but often to the entire underlying identity of the connected resource, allowing malicious actors to potentially take control of significant portions of an Azure environment. The article highlights the urgent need for administrators to meticulously review and restrict API Connection permissions to the absolute minimum required, emphasizing the principle of least privilege.
Hacker News users discussed the security implications of Azure API Connections, largely agreeing with the article's premise that they represent a significant attack surface. Several commenters highlighted the complexity of managing permissions and the potential for accidental data exposure due to overly permissive settings. The lack of granular control over data access within an API Connection was a recurring concern. Some users shared anecdotal experiences of encountering similar security issues in Azure, while others suggested alternative approaches like using managed identities or service principals for more secure resource access. The overall sentiment leaned toward caution when using API Connections, urging developers to carefully consider the security implications and explore safer alternatives.
SubImage, a Y Combinator W25 startup, launched a tool that allows you to see your cloud infrastructure through the eyes of an attacker. It automatically scans public-facing assets, identifying vulnerabilities and potential attack paths without requiring any credentials or agents. This external perspective helps companies understand their real attack surface and prioritize remediation efforts, focusing on the weaknesses most likely to be exploited. The goal is to bridge the gap between security teams' internal view and the reality of how attackers perceive their infrastructure, leading to a more proactive and effective security posture.
The Hacker News comments section for SubImage expresses cautious interest and skepticism. Several commenters question the practical value proposition, particularly given existing open-source tools like Amass and Shodan. Some doubt the ability to accurately replicate attacker reconnaissance, citing the limitations of automated tools compared to a dedicated human adversary. Others suggest the service might be more useful for smaller companies lacking dedicated security teams. The pricing model also draws criticism, with users expressing concern about per-asset costs potentially escalating quickly. A few commenters offer constructive feedback, suggesting integrations or features that would enhance the product, such as incorporating attack path analysis. Overall, the reception is lukewarm, with many awaiting further details and practical demonstrations of SubImage's capabilities before passing judgment.
The author argues that relying on US-based cloud providers is no longer safe for governments and societies, particularly in Europe. The CLOUD Act grants US authorities access to data stored by US companies regardless of location, undermining data sovereignty and exposing sensitive information to potential surveillance. This risk is compounded by increasing geopolitical tensions and the weaponization of data, making dependence on US cloud infrastructure a strategic vulnerability. The author advocates for shifting towards European-owned and operated cloud solutions that prioritize data protection and adhere to stricter regulatory frameworks like GDPR, ensuring digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on potentially adversarial nations.
Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise, expressing concerns about US government overreach and data access. Several commenters highlighted the lack of legal recourse for non-US entities against US government actions. Some suggested the EU's data protection regulations are insufficient against such power. The discussion also touched on the geopolitical implications, with commenters noting the US's history of using its technological dominance for political gain. A few commenters questioned the feasibility of entirely avoiding US cloud providers, acknowledging their advanced technology and market share. Others mentioned open-source alternatives and the importance of developing sovereign cloud infrastructure within the EU. A recurring theme was the need for greater digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on US-based services.
Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) observed multiple Russia-aligned threat actors, including APT29 (Cozy Bear) and Sandworm, actively targeting Signal users. These campaigns primarily focused on stealing authentication material from Signal servers, likely to bypass Signal's robust encryption and gain access to user communications. Although Signal's server-side infrastructure was targeted, the attackers needed physical access to the device to complete the compromise, significantly limiting the attack's effectiveness. While Signal's encryption remains unbroken, the targeting underscores the lengths to which nation-state actors will go to compromise secure communications.
HN commenters express skepticism about the Google blog post, questioning its timing and motivations. Some suggest it's a PR move by Google, designed to distract from their own security issues or promote their own messaging platforms. Others point out the lack of technical details in the post, making it difficult to assess the credibility of the claims. A few commenters discuss the inherent difficulties of securing any messaging platform against determined state-sponsored actors and the importance of robust security practices regardless of the provider. The possibility of phishing campaigns, rather than Signal vulnerabilities, being the attack vector is also raised. Finally, some commenters highlight the broader context of the ongoing conflict and the increased targeting of communication platforms.
Token Security, a cybersecurity startup focused on protecting "machine identities" (like API keys and digital certificates used by software and devices), has raised $20 million in funding. The company aims to combat the growing threat of hackers exploiting these often overlooked credentials, which are increasingly targeted as a gateway to sensitive data and systems. Their platform helps organizations manage and secure these machine identities, reducing the risk of breaches and unauthorized access.
HN commenters discuss the increasing attack surface of machine identities, echoing the article's concern. Some question the novelty of the problem, pointing out that managing server certificates and keys has always been a security concern. Others express skepticism towards Token Security's approach, suggesting that complexity in security solutions often introduces new vulnerabilities. The most compelling comments highlight the difficulty of managing machine identities at scale in modern cloud-native environments, where ephemeral workloads and automated deployments exacerbate the existing challenges. There's also discussion around the need for better tooling and automation to address this growing security gap.
Summary of Comments ( 582 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43398518
Hacker News users discuss the high acquisition price of Wiz, especially considering its relatively short existence and the current market downturn. Some speculate about the strategic value Google sees in Wiz, suggesting it might be related to cloud security competition with Microsoft, or a desire to bolster Google Cloud Platform's security offerings. Others question the due diligence process, wondering if Google overpaid. A few commenters note the significant payout for Wiz's founders and investors, and contemplate the broader implications for the cybersecurity market and startup valuations. There's also skepticism about the reported valuation, with some suggesting it might be inflated.
The Hacker News post "Google to buy Wiz for $32B" has generated several comments discussing the acquisition. A recurring theme is the sheer size of the deal, with many commenters expressing surprise at the $32 billion price tag, especially given Wiz's relatively young age and the recent downturn in the cybersecurity market. Some speculate about the motivations behind such a massive acquisition, suggesting Google might be playing catch-up in the cloud security space or aiming to integrate Wiz's technology deeply into Google Cloud Platform (GCP).
Several comments highlight the competitive landscape, comparing Wiz to other cloud security companies like Orca Security, Palo Alto Networks, and CrowdStrike. Some suggest that Google might have overpaid, while others argue that the acquisition price reflects the increasing importance of cloud security and Wiz's potential for growth.
Some commenters question the long-term implications of the acquisition, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest given Google's dominant position in the cloud market. They discuss the possibility of Wiz's technology becoming exclusive to GCP, which could limit its reach and potentially stifle innovation. Others express skepticism about Google's ability to successfully integrate such a large acquisition, citing past examples of acquisitions that haven't panned out as expected.
A few comments delve into the technical aspects of Wiz's technology, praising its agentless approach and its ability to provide comprehensive cloud security posture management. They compare Wiz's capabilities to other solutions and discuss the potential benefits of integrating it with existing Google Cloud services.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of surprise, skepticism, and cautious optimism about the Google-Wiz deal. Many acknowledge the strategic importance of cloud security but question the price tag and the long-term implications for the market. There's also a healthy dose of speculation about Google's motivations and the potential impact on the competitive landscape.