Stories with Tag Data Access

• I Went to SQL Injection Court

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-25 18:39:10

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author recounts their experience in an Illinois court fighting for access to public records pertaining to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request portal. They discovered and reported a SQL injection vulnerability in the portal, which the state acknowledged but failed to fix promptly. After repeated denials of their FOIA requests related to the vulnerability's remediation, they sued. The judge ultimately ruled in their favor, compelling the state to fulfill the request and highlighting the absurdity of the situation: having to sue to get information about how the government plans to fix a security flaw in a system designed for accessing information. The author concludes by advocating for stronger Illinois FOIA laws to prevent similar situations in the future.

  This blog post, titled "I Went to SQL Injection Court," details the author's experience assisting a journalist, named David, in pursuing legal action against the Illinois State Police (ISP) for improperly denying a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. David's request, which sought statistical information about arrests related to traffic stops, was rejected by the ISP due to security concerns, citing the potential for SQL injection vulnerabilities. The author, possessing expertise in database security, analyzed the ISP's web form and determined that it was indeed vulnerable to such attacks. This vulnerability could allow malicious actors to manipulate the form's input fields to execute arbitrary SQL commands, potentially exposing sensitive data from the underlying database.

  The author then meticulously documented this vulnerability, providing a comprehensive explanation of how it could be exploited. This documentation included specific examples of malicious queries that could be entered into the form, demonstrating the real-world risk associated with the flaw. Armed with this evidence, the author and David proceeded to file a lawsuit against the ISP, arguing that their rejection of the FOIA request based on security concerns was invalid because the ISP's own system was insecure. The crux of their argument was that the ISP could not legitimately cite security concerns as a reason for denying the FOIA request while simultaneously neglecting to address a significant vulnerability in their own system.

  The blog post narrates the court proceedings, highlighting the author's testimony as an expert witness. The author explained the nature of SQL injection and the specific vulnerability in the ISP's web form to the judge. The judge, after considering the evidence and testimony, ultimately ruled in favor of David and the author. The judge ordered the ISP to fulfill the FOIA request, implicitly acknowledging the validity of the author's security assessment and the spurious nature of the ISP's initial rejection. The post concludes by expressing the author’s satisfaction with the outcome, viewing it as a victory for transparency and accountability in government agencies. The author further underlines the importance of robust security practices and emphasizes that genuine security concerns should be addressed proactively rather than being used as a pretext for withholding public information. The case underscores the importance of technical expertise in legal battles surrounding technology and access to information.

  • SQL Injection
  • FOIA
  • Illinois
  • Open Records
  • Government Transparency
  • Data Access
  • Legal Case
  • Court Case
  • Public Records
  • Freedom of Information
  • information access
  • transparency
  • Civic Tech
  • government data

  Summary of Comments ( 370 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43175628

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally praise the author's persistence and ingenuity in using SQL injection to expose flaws in the Illinois FOIA request system. Some express concern about the legality and ethics of his actions, even if unintentional. Several commenters with legal backgrounds offer perspectives on the potential ramifications, pointing out the complexities of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the potential for prosecution despite claimed good intentions. A few question the author's technical competence, suggesting alternative methods he could have used to achieve the same results without resorting to SQL injection. Others discuss the larger implications for government transparency and the need for robust security practices in public-facing systems. The most compelling comments revolve around the balance between responsible disclosure and the legal risks associated with security research, highlighting the gray area the author occupies.

  The Hacker News post "I Went to SQL Injection Court" (regarding the blog post about FOIA issues in Illinois) has several comments discussing various aspects of the situation.

  Many commenters focus on the absurdity of the legal arguments and the judge's apparent lack of technical understanding. One commenter highlights the judge's confusion between SQL injection and simply using SQL, pointing out that using SQL isn't inherently malicious. This commenter expresses frustration with the legal system's inability to grasp basic technical concepts, leading to flawed judgments. Another commenter sarcastically suggests that using a web browser constitutes "browser injection" because it involves sending commands to a server, mirroring the faulty logic applied to SQL injection.

  Several comments discuss the implications of this case for security research and vulnerability disclosure. Commenters express concern that this ruling could discourage security researchers from reporting vulnerabilities, fearing legal repercussions for simply demonstrating how an exploit works. They argue that this chilling effect could have detrimental consequences for online security. One commenter draws a parallel to medical research, arguing that prosecuting someone for demonstrating a vulnerability is akin to prosecuting a medical researcher for demonstrating how a virus spreads.

  Another commenter expresses concern over the reliance on "intent" in determining the legality of security testing. They argue that focusing on intent is subjective and difficult to prove, making it a poor basis for legal decisions in technical matters. This commenter suggests that a more objective standard based on the actual actions taken would be preferable.

  Some comments delve into the specifics of Illinois law and the legal arguments presented. One commenter notes the apparent contradiction between the court's ruling and the Illinois Compiled Statutes, suggesting a misinterpretation of the law. Another points out the apparent lack of evidence presented by the prosecution, focusing solely on the method used rather than any demonstrable harm caused.

  A few commenters offer practical advice and alternative perspectives. One commenter suggests that using a proxy server could potentially circumvent the legal issues raised in the case. Another commenter offers a more cynical view, suggesting that the prosecution may be motivated more by politics and personal vendettas than a genuine concern for cybersecurity.

  Finally, some commenters express broader concerns about the increasing criminalization of security research and the potential for chilling effects on legitimate activities. They advocate for clearer legal frameworks and better education within the legal system about technical matters to prevent similar situations in the future.

• DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-20 07:36:34

  Verbose tl;dr

  A satirical piece in The Atlantic imagines a dystopian future where Dogecoin, due to a series of improbable events, becomes the backbone of government infrastructure. This leads to the meme cryptocurrency inadvertently gaining access to vast amounts of sensitive government data, a situation dubbed "god mode." The article highlights the absurdity of such a scenario while satirizing the volatile nature of cryptocurrency, government bureaucracy, and the potential consequences of unforeseen technological dependencies.

  The Atlantic article, provocatively titled "DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data," explores a hypothetical, and alarming, scenario where the popular, yet arguably frivolous, cryptocurrency Dogecoin has inadvertently become deeply intertwined with critical government infrastructure. This entanglement grants individuals with significant Dogecoin holdings unprecedented access to sensitive governmental data, effectively giving them "god mode" privileges. The article meticulously details the complex, and frankly absurd, chain of events that led to this hypothetical situation. It begins by explaining how a seemingly innocuous initiative to modernize outdated government systems using blockchain technology, specifically leveraging the Dogecoin blockchain due to its perceived low cost and readily available developer community, backfired spectacularly.

  Initially, the integration of Dogecoin appeared successful. Cost savings were realized, and the system seemed to be functioning smoothly. However, a critical oversight in the system's design, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dogecoin blockchain's inherent properties and a lack of rigorous security auditing, created a significant vulnerability. This vulnerability, the article explains, allows individuals who control a substantial portion of the Dogecoin in circulation to manipulate the blockchain's record-keeping mechanism. This manipulation, in turn, allows them to access and potentially alter data stored on government servers, ranging from mundane administrative records to highly classified intelligence briefings. The article paints a picture of a government operating in blissful ignorance of this profound security breach, with officials continuing to tout the cost-effectiveness of the Dogecoin-based system while remaining oblivious to the catastrophic potential consequences.

  The article further elaborates on the hypothetical ramifications of this vulnerability, exploring the potential for blackmail, espionage, and even manipulation of election results by malicious actors who have amassed sufficient Dogecoin. It highlights the inherent dangers of adopting nascent and inadequately understood technologies for critical infrastructure without thorough due diligence and security considerations. The article also touches upon the irony of Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency originally conceived as a lighthearted internet meme, potentially becoming a tool for undermining democratic processes and national security. It concludes by urging a comprehensive review of all government systems that utilize blockchain technology, emphasizing the need for stringent security protocols and a cautious approach to integrating experimental technologies into sensitive areas of government operations. The article serves as a cautionary tale about the unforeseen consequences of technological adoption without proper planning and oversight, underscoring the critical importance of cybersecurity in an increasingly interconnected world.

  • Dogecoin
  • government data
  • Data Access
  • Security
  • privacy
  • Cybersecurity
  • Technology
  • Politics
  • Satire
  • The Atlantic

  Summary of Comments ( 994 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112084

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users express skepticism and amusement at the Atlantic article's premise. Several commenters highlight the satirical nature of the piece, pointing out clues like the "Doge" angle and the outlandish claims. Others question the journalistic integrity of publishing such a clearly fictional story, even if intended as satire, without clearer labeling. Some found the satire weak or confusing, while a few appreciate the absurdity and humor. A recurring theme is the blurring lines between reality and satire in the current media landscape, with some worrying about the potential for misinterpretation.

  The Hacker News post "DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data" (linking to a satirical article in The Atlantic) has generated a number of comments, most of which recognize the satirical nature of the piece and engage with it humorously or by extending the fictional premise.

  Several commenters play along with the scenario, contributing further imagined details or consequences. One user jokes about DOGE's plans for global domination now that it controls DMV and IRS data, while another quips about the inevitable creation of a "DogeDAO" to govern this newfound power. Another commenter humorously speculates on the use of "very advanced, much wow cryptography" being behind the supposed security breach. The playful tone of these comments reinforces the absurdity of the original article's premise.

  A few commenters focus on the plausibility (or implausibility) of such a scenario, even within a satirical context. One user highlights the absurdity of a government system relying on a single point of failure, especially one controlled by a cryptocurrency like DOGE. Another expresses a sardonic amusement at the notion, suggesting it wouldn't be entirely surprising given the current state of affairs.

  A small thread of comments branches off to discuss the wider implications of government data security and the potential for misuse, reflecting a more serious consideration of the underlying themes touched upon by the satire.

  Overall, the comments section predominantly features humorous reactions and expansions on the satirical premise, with a sprinkling of more serious observations about data security and government systems. The lack of genuine outrage or concern clearly indicates that the commenters understand and appreciate the satirical intent of the linked article.

• U.K. demand for a back door to Apple data threatens Americans, lawmakers say

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-13 14:53:46

  Verbose tl;dr

  Bipartisan U.S. lawmakers are expressing concern over a proposed U.K. surveillance law that would compel tech companies like Apple to compromise the security of their encrypted messaging systems. They argue that creating a "back door" for U.K. law enforcement would weaken security globally, putting Americans' data at risk and setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This, they claim, would ultimately undermine encryption, a crucial tool for protecting sensitive information from criminals and hostile governments, and empower authoritarian regimes.

  A burgeoning controversy is brewing across the Atlantic, with significant implications for the digital privacy of individuals not only in the United Kingdom but also, as several United States lawmakers contend, in America. The heart of the matter lies in proposed legislation in the U.K., referred to as the Investigatory Powers Act or "Snooper's Charter" by its detractors, which would compel technology companies like Apple to provide British authorities with access to encrypted data. This access would effectively circumvent the robust security measures currently in place, creating what is commonly termed a "back door."

  American legislators are expressing grave concerns that this proposed mandate sets a dangerous precedent, jeopardizing the privacy and security of American citizens. Their argument rests on the potential for the U.K.'s actions to embolden other nations to enact similar legislation, thus creating a domino effect where governments around the globe demand access to encrypted communications. This, they argue, would erode the foundational principles of digital security and privacy that many technology companies, including Apple, have championed.

  The crux of the American lawmakers' apprehension centers on the belief that any weakening of encryption standards in one jurisdiction inherently weakens them globally. If Apple is forced to create a mechanism to bypass its own security measures for the U.K. government, the fear is that this same mechanism could be exploited by malicious actors, including hostile governments or cybercriminals, to access sensitive information belonging to Americans. Furthermore, these lawmakers argue that such a precedent could undermine American technology companies' competitive advantage in the global market, as international customers may lose trust in the security of their products and services if they are perceived as susceptible to government surveillance.

  The situation is further complicated by the delicate balance between national security interests and individual privacy rights. While the U.K. government justifies its proposed legislation as necessary for combating terrorism and serious crime, American lawmakers counter that this approach sacrifices crucial privacy protections for a potentially negligible gain in security. They posit that weakening encryption will not deter determined criminals or terrorists, who will simply migrate to alternative, more secure communication platforms. Instead, it will leave ordinary citizens, businesses, and critical infrastructure vulnerable to a wider range of cyber threats. This transatlantic disagreement underscores the complex and multifaceted challenges posed by the rapidly evolving digital landscape and the ongoing debate regarding the appropriate balance between security and privacy in the 21st century.

  • Apple
  • privacy
  • Security
  • Encryption
  • UK
  • United Kingdom
  • law enforcement
  • surveillance
  • Data Access
  • Cybersecurity
  • Technology
  • Government
  • Legislation
  • Data Protection
  • National Security
  • Backdoor
  • American Civil Liberties
  • US Politics

  Summary of Comments ( 36 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43036434

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters are skeptical of the "threat to Americans" angle, pointing out that the UK and US already share significant intelligence data, and that a UK backdoor would likely be accessible to the US as well. Some suggest the real issue is Apple resisting government access to data, and that the article frames this as a UK vs. US issue to garner more attention. Others question the technical feasibility and security implications of such a backdoor, arguing it would create a significant vulnerability exploitable by malicious actors. Several highlight the hypocrisy of US lawmakers complaining about a UK backdoor while simultaneously pushing for similar capabilities themselves. Finally, some commenters express broader concerns about the erosion of privacy and the increasing surveillance powers of governments.

  The Hacker News comments section for the linked article contains a robust discussion with various viewpoints on the UK's proposed legislation demanding a back door to Apple data. Many commenters express concern about the implications for security and privacy, not just for UK citizens but also for Americans and others globally.

  A recurring theme is the "slippery slope" argument. Several users posit that if the UK successfully compels Apple to create a backdoor, other countries will inevitably follow suit, creating a fragmented and weakened security landscape. This would effectively nullify end-to-end encryption, rendering everyone vulnerable to surveillance and malicious actors. One commenter highlighted the potential for authoritarian regimes to exploit such backdoors, suppressing dissent and violating human rights.

  Some commenters discuss the technical feasibility and implications of implementing such a backdoor. They argue that a truly secure backdoor is impossible to create, as any mechanism designed for law enforcement access could also be exploited by hackers. The discussion delves into the potential for "client-side scanning" and its inherent flaws, including the possibility of false positives and the erosion of trust in technology.

  Several comments also question the motivations behind the UK's proposal, speculating about the government's desire for greater surveillance capabilities. Some express skepticism about the claimed need for backdoors to combat terrorism and child exploitation, arguing that existing investigative methods are sufficient. They also highlight the potential for abuse of power and the chilling effect on free speech.

  A few commenters offer alternative solutions, such as focusing on improving international cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement agencies. They suggest that these methods would be more effective in combating crime while preserving privacy and security.

  There's also a thread discussing the legal and jurisdictional challenges associated with compelling a US company to comply with UK law. Some commenters predict a protracted legal battle between Apple and the UK government, with uncertain outcomes.

  Finally, a smaller number of comments express support for the UK's proposal, arguing that law enforcement needs access to encrypted data to effectively investigate serious crimes. These comments often focus on the need to balance privacy with security, though they are generally met with counterarguments about the technical impracticality and potential dangers of backdoors. The discussion overall demonstrates a significant level of concern about the potential ramifications of the UK's proposed legislation.