News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our production server. Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our ... by _kst_ on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @12:47PM (#12174362)
If you're going to offer a reward, I suggest making it conditional on revealing how they got in.

(This also assumes you're able to contact the person who sent the e-mail.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our ... by purerandomness on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @01:49PM (#12174996)
> making it conditional on revealing how they got in

Do you mean obligatory? If you really mean conditional, could you elaborate why?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our ... by valleyer on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @01:54PM (#12175054)
You agree with your parent comment. Making A conditional on B means B is required (though, depending on exact semantics, not necessarily sufficient) for A. A requires at least B.

So: B would be obligatory, given A.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our ... by _kst_ on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:51PM (#12175541)
I mean don't pay someone for breaking into your system and not telling you how they did it. Pay them only if they provide you with some useful information that can help you fix the problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Anonymous person sent proof of SSH access to our ... by andrewaylett on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:07PM (#12175181)
In this case, the payment is conditional on revealing the method: that is, unless the method is revealed (condition met) the payment will not be made.
[ Parent | on HN ]