Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal hacking

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by MaximumYComb on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @12:57AM (#22745846)

Is obfuscation a type of authorisation? If you knowingly exploited a vulnerability to access a non-standard URL then it's pretty obvious you shouldn't have been there. This isn't you navigating to a websites home page, the information I've found reads the following for CVE-2008-6541:

>Access Complexity Medium (The access conditions are somewhat specialized. Some preconditions must be satistified to exploit)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by CiPHPerCoder on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @02:12AM (#22746184)

> Is obfuscation a type of authorisation?

No.

And even if you tried to argue that, the exploit was public on exploit-db for years, and therefore the expected security from the broken obfuscation is zero bits; so in this case, it would not count.

More pertinent:

> Authentication Not required (Authentication is not required to exploit the vulnerability.)

[ Parent | on HN ]