Stories with Tag Email Leak

• 4chan Sharty Hack And Janitor Email Leak

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-15 11:30:56

  Verbose tl;dr

  In late April 2025, 4chan experienced a significant data breach nicknamed "Sharty" involving the leak of emails belonging to Hiroyuki Nishimura (moot), the site's founder, and other 4chan janitors (moderators). The leaked emails contained personal information, private discussions, and internal 4chan communications. While the exact extent and impact of the breach remained unclear, it fueled speculation and discussion within the 4chan community and beyond regarding the site's security practices and the privacy of its users. The hack also resulted in various memes and jokes related to the leaked content, particularly targeting moot and the janitors' perceived incompetence.

  In late April 2025, an alleged security breach of the imageboard website 4chan, commonly referred to as the "Sharty Hack," resulted in a significant disruption of service and the purported leak of sensitive internal information, including emails belonging to Hiroyuki Nishimura, the site's owner, often referred to online by his handle "moot," and other 4chan staff, most notably the site's head janitor, known as "Wageslave." The precise nature and extent of the hack remain unclear and shrouded in conflicting accounts and speculation. While some users reported witnessing distorted and manipulated imagery, including instances of scatological humor, notably involving images of fecal matter – hence the "Sharty" moniker – others dismissed these occurrences as elaborate pranks or coordinated trolling efforts. The purported leaked emails, the authenticity of which was never definitively confirmed, allegedly contained internal discussions regarding site moderation policies, financial details, and potentially embarrassing personal information. The incident generated widespread discussion and amusement across various online communities, with users generating memes and humorous commentary related to the supposed breach and its implications. However, the lack of official confirmation from 4chan administrators and the ambiguous nature of the evidence presented led to ongoing uncertainty about the veracity of the claims, leaving open the possibility that the entire episode was a carefully orchestrated hoax. The event is notable for its contribution to the culture of internet pranks and for exemplifying the challenges associated with verifying information in the decentralized and often chaotic landscape of online communities.

  • 4chan
  • hack
  • leak
  • Email Leak
  • janitor
  • sharty
  • April 2025
  • Internet Culture
  • online community
  • imageboard
  • meme
  • internet meme
  • Digital Culture

  Summary of Comments ( 813 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43691334

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the plausibility of the "sharty hack" and leaked janitor emails, with skepticism being the dominant sentiment. Several commenters point out inconsistencies and improbabilities within the narrative, like the janitor's unusual email address format and the lack of corroborating evidence. The overall consensus leans towards the story being a fabrication, possibly an elaborate troll or creative writing exercise. Some users express amusement at the absurdity of the situation, while others criticize Know Your Meme for giving attention to such easily debunked stories. A few commenters suggest potential motivations for the hoax, including a desire to generate chaos or simply for entertainment.

  The Hacker News post titled "4chan Sharty Hack And Janitor Email Leak" linking to the Know Your Meme article has generated several comments discussing the incident and its implications.

  Several commenters express skepticism about the veracity of the leaked emails, pointing out the lack of concrete evidence and the potential for fabrication. One commenter questions the authenticity, stating it "sounds like a larp," using internet slang for a live-action role-playing game, implying it's a fictional narrative presented as reality. This sentiment is echoed by others who find the story unbelievable and too neatly packaged. The commenters highlight the absence of corroborating evidence from sources outside 4chan, further fueling their doubts.

  The discussion also touches on the nature of 4chan and its culture. One commenter mentions the site's history of elaborate pranks and hoaxes, suggesting this incident could be another example. Another points to the inherent difficulty of verifying information originating from 4chan due to its anonymous nature and fast-paced, chaotic environment. They emphasize the importance of treating such information with caution, particularly given the lack of independent verification.

  Some comments delve into the technical aspects of the alleged hack. One commenter questions the plausibility of accessing email archives through the described method, implying it seems technically improbable. Another speculates on potential vulnerabilities and methods the hackers might have exploited, but acknowledges the lack of technical details available to confirm the claims.

  Furthermore, some users comment on the humor and absurdity of the situation. They find the narrative, regardless of its truthfulness, entertaining and fitting within the context of 4chan's often bizarre and outrageous culture. The term "sharty" itself is highlighted as amusing and contributing to the overall comedic value of the incident. Some users also note the irony of the alleged hackers' apparent motivation – exposing the perceived hypocrisy of 4chan's moderation policies – while simultaneously engaging in disruptive behavior.

  Finally, a few comments express concern about the potential consequences for 4chan, including legal ramifications and damage to its reputation. However, these comments are generally overshadowed by the prevailing skepticism and amusement regarding the incident. The overall tone of the comments section is one of cautious disbelief mixed with a degree of amusement, reflecting the uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the claims and the inherent strangeness of the situation.

• Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-12 11:19:42

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author claims to have found a vulnerability in YouTube's systems that allows retrieval of the email address associated with any YouTube channel for a $10,000 bounty. They describe a process involving crafting specific playlist URLs and exploiting how YouTube handles playlist sharing and unlisted videos to ultimately reveal the target channel's email address within a Google Account picker. While they provided Google with a proof-of-concept, they did not fully disclose the details publicly for ethical and security reasons. They emphasize the seriousness of this vulnerability, given the potential for targeted harassment and phishing attacks against prominent YouTubers.

  This blog post, titled "Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000," details a purported vulnerability within the YouTube platform that could theoretically allow an attacker to uncover the email address associated with any given YouTube user account. The author, identified as "Brutecat," outlines a complex, multi-stage process leveraging several seemingly innocuous features of the YouTube platform. This process does not involve any hacking in the traditional sense, but rather exploits a series of interconnected functionalities to deduce the target's email address.

  The core of the vulnerability revolves around the ability to invite users to collaborate on a private video. When such an invitation is sent, the recipient receives a notification containing the obfuscated email address of the sender. This obfuscation takes the form of replacing characters in the email address with asterisks, leaving only the first and last characters, as well as the domain name, visible.

  Brutecat posits that by strategically creating multiple accounts with slight variations in the email address and sending collaboration invitations from these accounts to the target user, an attacker could gather enough information from the resulting obfuscated email notifications to reconstruct the full email address of the target. This is achievable due to the consistent placement of the asterisks, which reveal the length of the email address and the position of the known characters. By iteratively refining the guess of the email address and observing the resulting obfuscated versions, the attacker could systematically eliminate incorrect guesses and eventually pinpoint the precise email address.

  The author emphasizes that the cost mentioned in the title, $10,000, is a hypothetical bounty that they would demand from Google to disclose this vulnerability responsibly. This figure underscores the perceived severity of the vulnerability and the potential impact it could have on user privacy. The author argues that this vulnerability is particularly concerning because it can be exploited against any YouTube user, regardless of their privacy settings or security practices. The process, while laborious and time-consuming, is theoretically feasible and requires no specialized technical skills, making it accessible to a wider range of potential attackers. Finally, the author notes that this vulnerability highlights the potential risks associated with seemingly benign platform features and underscores the importance of thorough security testing and vulnerability analysis.

  • YouTube
  • Email Leak
  • Data Breach
  • Cybersecurity
  • privacy
  • Vulnerability
  • Exploit
  • Bug Bounty
  • information security
  • User Data
  • Social Media Security
  • Online Security
  • hacking
  • Data Privacy

  Summary of Comments ( 350 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43024221

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely discussed the plausibility and specifics of the vulnerability described in the article. Some doubted the $10,000 price tag, suggesting it was inflated. Others questioned whether the vulnerability stemmed from a single bug or multiple chained exploits. A few commenters analyzed the technical details, focusing on the potential involvement of improperly configured OAuth flows or mismanaged access tokens within YouTube's systems. There was also skepticism about the ethical implications of disclosing the vulnerability details before Google had a chance to patch it, with some arguing responsible disclosure practices weren't followed. Finally, several comments highlighted the broader security risks associated with OAuth and similar authorization mechanisms.

  The Hacker News post titled "Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters expressing skepticism and raising practical questions about the claims made in the linked article.

  Several commenters questioned the feasibility of the exploit described in the article. They pointed out that obtaining an email address for $10,000 seems excessively expensive, especially considering the lack of clarity regarding the type of account being targeted (e.g., a regular user vs. a high-value brand account). Some suggested that simpler and cheaper methods might exist for obtaining such information, depending on the target.

  One commenter expressed doubt about the legality of offering such a service, suggesting that it could potentially violate privacy laws like GDPR.

  Another commenter highlighted the lack of technical details in the article, making it difficult to assess the validity of the claimed exploit. This commenter also wondered about the author's motivation for publishing the article without disclosing more information.

  Some users discussed the potential implications of the exploit, with one suggesting that even if true, it might not be particularly impactful for most users. They pointed out that many YouTube accounts are already linked to publicly known Google accounts, making their email addresses relatively easy to discover.

  Several commenters focused on the article's claim about being able to determine the subscriber count of private videos. They questioned the usefulness of this information, given that private videos aren't publicly visible.

  Finally, a few comments touched upon the ethical implications of the described service and the broader issue of vulnerabilities in online platforms.

  Overall, the comments on Hacker News largely reflect a critical and cautious response to the claims made in the article, with many users expressing doubts about its feasibility, practicality, and overall significance. The discussion focused on the high cost of the service, the lack of technical details, and the potentially limited impact of the described exploit.