News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by eastonhockey19 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @06:41PM (#10755545)
"This bug has been fixed, the affected keys have been rotated, and we have no evidence that Wes or anybody else accessed any user data."
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by grrowl on Thursday December 17, 2015 @07:19PM (#10755748)
> and we have no evidence that Wes or anybody else accessed any user data

This raises way more questions than it answers. Most notably: why aren't you recording who accesses user data?

Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by nostalgiac on Thursday December 17, 2015 @08:58PM (#10756124)
Reads to me that they are recording the access and no-one did access it.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by lstamour on Thursday December 17, 2015 @10:46PM (#10756492)
Not necessarily. If that were the case, wouldn't they use the stronger, "and we have evidence that no data was accessed through this exploit"? The fact is: They can't possibly protect user data once the private SSL keys leak. At that point anyone can intercept user data on third-party, non-Facebook servers if they're affiliated with an ISP, wifi hotspot or other point of access. Anyone could send targeted phishing emails for their servers: How would they know, if the SSL cert looks legit and the DNS is regionally poisoned?
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by Alupis on Thursday December 17, 2015 @06:43PM (#10755554)
Because of the sequence of events that played out...
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by eastonhockey19 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @06:52PM (#10755608)
Yes and he got paid for it.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by Alupis on Thursday December 17, 2015 @07:00PM (#10755648)
I'm not quite sure I understand your point? Of course he got paid, that's how bug bounties work... that doesn't detract in any way from the point I made above.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by eastonhockey19 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @07:02PM (#10755661)
And I don't understand yours. You were concerned about other people other than Wes accessing the same data via the same flaw, Alex said that did not happen.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by Dr_tldr on Thursday December 17, 2015 @11:37PM (#10756669)
But until Wes told them, they had no evidence that Wes was accessing the data! Or are you saying that they did have evidence, but chose to take a "wait and see" approach to someone gaining control of their entire platform?
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by CRConrad on Friday December 18, 2015 @05:39AM (#10757774)
No, he claimed _not to have any evidence_ that it did happen.

"Quick, shut off the logging on those servers, so we don't have any record of who logged in on them!"

Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by dandelany on Thursday December 17, 2015 @07:18PM (#10755741)
Alex said they "have no evidence" it happened, which is classic slippery legalese. From that phrase it is reasonable to infer either that they have evidence of absence, or absence of evidence, which are not the same thing.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by eastonhockey19 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @07:48PM (#10755855)
It's standard wording for something like this even if they had 100% evidence of absence.
Re:Instagram's Million Dollar Bug by dandelany on Thursday December 17, 2015 @11:07PM (#10756565)
Correct. It's the standard wording, whether or not they actually have evidence. Therefore we cannot assume, as you have earlier in this thread, that they do in fact have it.