News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by bawolff on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:22PM (#28868767)
Users don't normally construct urls by hand. Wouldn't the equivalent more be like:

You filled out some form to request a document from the irs. You give the form to the person they give you the document.

You notice they dont check ids, so you change the name on the form, and get someone else's document.

This definitely seems to fit the definition of fraud:

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service [that's the canada definition]

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by strofcon on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:34PM (#28868911)
But... they didn't change their name on the form. They literally just said "I'm still me, but I want this other file now, please."

All company data was, in OPs scenario, made public to any and all authenticated users.

There is no way to rationally spin this as a malicious act, in my view.

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by kelnos on Thursday October 14, 2021 @04:27PM (#28869580)
I don't think simply changing the ID in the URL to see what would happen is itself a malicious act. But, after discovering the vulnerability, OP admitted to continuing to exploit the vulnerability so they could make use of the information they'd gotten, information that they should not have access to. That part of it is actively malicious.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by mcguire on Thursday October 14, 2021 @05:41PM (#28870543)
No one is claiming "I'm still me, but I want this other file now, please." is a malicious act.

Downloading a number of them and comparing information, however, is not necessarily malicious but rather sketchy.

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by bawolff on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:40PM (#28868977)
Well they changed an id number. I guess the real life version would be changing the SSN number on the form.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by MangezBien on Thursday October 14, 2021 @04:07PM (#28869310)
An ssn is considered private info, the plan number wouldn't be.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by White_Wolf on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:46PM (#28869040)
"deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means" => editing the URL is neither of those. Forgig a cookie for access is, just like randomly trying passwords and usernames.

The closest real life example I can think of would be along the lines of: - your car is in a public parking space and someone look inside vs - the same car is in the garrage and someone breaks the door to look inside your car

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by alpaca128 on Thursday October 14, 2021 @08:02PM (#28871994)
> Users don't normally construct urls by hand

You never typed google.com into the browser? I doubt it. Maybe you just mean "construct" as in edit the url to access another site - well, that's still a perfectly normal use-case. I regularly change reddit urls to old.reddit because it gives me a better user interface. Or access a subreddit by adding an "r/subname". Sure, those aren't alphanumeric IDs, but that distinction is meaningless. Some unique IDs on the web do actually consist exclusively of english words. And some numeric IDs are harmless page numbers or pagination info.

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by Dylan16807 on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:40PM (#28868978)
I don't think changing the name is a fair comparison.

This definition of fraud doesn't define the word "defraud"? I don't know how I'm supposed to see if it fits or not.

It can't mean any action, or going into a store, lying about my name, and asking what aisle has baked beans would fit. Because that has "deceit" and "any service".

If I interpret things as the service being minimal and provided for free, so that I'm not deceptively getting the service, then we have to look at what actually gets sent to me, and whether it's "property, money or valuable security". And since it's just a copy of the data sent at no cost, it's much harder to argue fraud exists.

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by kelnos on Thursday October 14, 2021 @04:30PM (#28869639)
The data in this case clearly had value; OP admitted to continuing to change numbers in the URL to get more information about what plans other companies were signing up for, because that information was valuable to them.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by Talanes on Thursday October 14, 2021 @04:57PM (#28869990)
You're assuming the "because that information was valuable to them" part. Or you're using such a broad definition of valuable that would also make this comment thread valuable because I have refreshed it multiple times.

While you could construct hypotheticals where OP is using the health plan information to gain actual value, they are all so far-fetched I wouldn't buy them as a fictional plotline. Dude was probably just curious.

Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by marcellus23 on Thursday October 14, 2021 @03:49PM (#28869080)
A closer analogy would be that you keep the name as your name, but change the # of the document you're requesting. It's the IRS's job to ensure you're allowed to retrieve that doc.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by kelnos on Thursday October 14, 2021 @04:33PM (#28869670)
Sure, but I guarantee you that if the IRS screwed up and gave you the other doc, and you made use of that information (rather than immediately turning around and saying "um, IRS, I think you made a mistake; this doc doesn't belong to me"), you'd be in trouble as well.
Re:Governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found ... by marcellus23 on Thursday October 14, 2021 @05:58PM (#28870734)
Haha that's fair.