News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by mixmax on Friday April 11, 2014 @06:18AM (#7572075)
In large production environments it's almost impossible to avoid bugs - and some of them are going to be nasty. What sets great and security conscious companies apart from the rest is how they deal with them.

This is an examplary response from google. They respond promptly (with humor no less) and thank the guys that found the bug. Then they proceeded to pay out a bounty of $10.000.

Well done google.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by Trufa on Friday April 11, 2014 @08:50AM (#7572546)
Indeed, it's funny that I'm reading about a vulnerability they had and it's actually making me feel more safe about using their products.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by borski on Friday April 11, 2014 @10:20AM (#7572966)
I am really glad about how they responded. Whenever Tinfoil has found vulnerabilities in companies like United Airlines[0], for example, those companies mostly respond with anger rather than graciousness.

[0] https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/blog/132969897

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by TallGuyShort on Friday April 11, 2014 @10:38AM (#7573082)
Exactly. I just saw that the local bank my parents use is still vulnerable to the Heartbleed Bug. But you know what? I don't want to go down there and talk to them because I'm quite certain they'll call the police because I "hacked into their systems".
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by derefr on Friday April 11, 2014 @04:06PM (#7575253)
There should be a security equivalent to hiring a lawyer to write strongly-worded letters for you.

Maybe someone could set up a firm where individuals could hand them a vuln report, and then the firm would contact the vulnerable company on the individual's behalf. The firm would do the long, boring dance of "we suspect you're vulnerable to X, though we haven't tested it, but we'd like to do a free vulnerability test on you, so please sign this liability waiver", both protecting the individual from liability, and taking time the individual doesn't have. In return, if the company gives rewards, the firm could take a percentage.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by eric_cc on Friday April 11, 2014 @06:08PM (#7575883)
So you pay money to hire somebody to send a company a letter informing the company of the companies problem in hopes that maybe, just maybe, the company will reward the the firm a small sum of money and you will get a small amount back.

I think you have a winner on your hands.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by ithkuil on Sunday April 13, 2014 @08:05AM (#7581061)
I might be living in a country with very few banks (3). I may benefit from letting them know about a security issue, especially if because of that issue I could potentially go to jail

I may not have the option of changing bank because the others are even worse.

however I don't know how much I would pay for that. Probably some kind of class action would work.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by derefr on Friday April 11, 2014 @06:34PM (#7575996)
They wouldn't be doing it for the money. The EFF would be a good example of a firm that could take this practice up.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by stingraycharles on Friday April 11, 2014 @11:13PM (#7576832)
That's besides the point. It still costs money, and the company that's vulnerable is not the one paying it. A service like this would be time consuming (bogus reports, etc), and the EFF would still have to use money from donations to finance this.

The only thing I can think about is some security firm doing this, using the exposure as a marketing tool and establish them as an authority on the subject.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by Semaphor on Friday April 11, 2014 @12:48PM (#7573991)
> I just saw that the local bank my parents use is still vulnerable to the Heartbleed Bug.

Just remember, many sites use the old certificate expiration even though they generated new certificates which shows up as a false positive on the checking tools.

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by VikingCoder on Friday April 11, 2014 @12:44PM (#7573966)
One idea: Call your local newspaper with an anonymous tip?
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by borski on Friday April 11, 2014 @10:41AM (#7573109)
To be fair, there are some that respond more graciously than others, but it's entirely unclear.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by AJ007 on Friday April 11, 2014 @12:05PM (#7573709)
If you are a bank, and you haven't fix one of the worst and widest reaching security holes in years by now.. well. Criminal negligence would be an appropriate description.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by bananas on Friday April 11, 2014 @05:08PM (#7575656)
That's what pastebin is for.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by carl689 on Friday April 11, 2014 @11:25AM (#7573412)
While I know plenty of companies do not respond how I feel they should to vulnerabilities, reading that story I don't see any cited anger from United Airlines.

Am I missing part of the story?

Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by borski on Friday April 11, 2014 @11:39AM (#7573516)
You're right; the anger was mostly behind the scenes. It turns out it's also /incredibly/ hard to disclose a vulnerability to most companies. Companies like Google or that have bug bounty / disclosure programs are to be lauded. :)
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Friday April 11, 2014 @12:44PM (#7573967)
Call me an idealist, but I think 10,000 could be low.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by bch on Friday April 11, 2014 @01:08PM (#7574125)
Where _is_ Google's response?
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by nyrulez on Friday April 11, 2014 @03:48PM (#7575158)
if you read the article, it summarizes it.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by bch on Friday April 11, 2014 @08:09PM (#7576299)
Oh -- that video was part of Googles response? I thought it was part some meme to describe Googles response.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by icambron on Saturday April 12, 2014 @03:19AM (#7577234)
That's how I read it, yes.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by azurezyq on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:45AM (#7577529)
Meme is a common way of communication in Google, even formally.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by fabulist on Saturday April 12, 2014 @07:47AM (#7577606)
Thats fascinating, do you happen to remember the reference?
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by cdelsolar on Friday April 11, 2014 @01:49PM (#7574342)
Hmm a pretty cheap road trip for just ten dollars, and I'm also not sure why they thought it necessary to include an extra significant figure for cents.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by pmcjones on Friday April 11, 2014 @02:53PM (#7574708)
Some countries reverse the role of period and comma in numbers. The author meant ten thousand.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by barsonme on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:12PM (#7576489)
I'll admit, it threw me off at first too.
Re:How we got read access on Google’s production servers by bencoder on Saturday April 12, 2014 @08:39AM (#7577689)
Comma is actually used for decimal separator in more of the world than the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DecimalSeparator.svg