Leaking URLs to the Clown(rachelbythebay.com)
rachelbythebay.com
Leaking URLs to the Clown
http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2024/06/24/feed/
56 comments
Artykul <https://artykul.org/>
I doubt it is this one. A quick read of that page and there's a few features that immediately had me assuming data would be synced to the cloud.
It's not hard to find out which one it is, though. I don't want to name names but the post gives a clear hint.
Why not name names? Who are you trying to protect, and why do they need protection from their own misdeeds, and why don't their users and everyone else deserve to know? They don't respect people's privacy, but deserve to have their own corporate privacy respected for some reason?
Because I don't have all the facts and I can't put the genie back in the bottle.
I think there needs to be a balance between "if you really want to research this alleged invasion of privacy then you should look here" and "that guy is bad, everybody go harass him". I haven't seen the logs and I haven't read the company's website in detail, so I'm not going to point the finger at someone for what could be a misunderstanding.
Maybe the website does point out this behavior. Maybe it's a badly configured script. Maybe it's as bad as described. I certainly don't know and I'd rather not join an internet mob until I've done my due diligence.
I think there needs to be a balance between "if you really want to research this alleged invasion of privacy then you should look here" and "that guy is bad, everybody go harass him". I haven't seen the logs and I haven't read the company's website in detail, so I'm not going to point the finger at someone for what could be a misunderstanding.
Maybe the website does point out this behavior. Maybe it's a badly configured script. Maybe it's as bad as described. I certainly don't know and I'd rather not join an internet mob until I've done my due diligence.
> Because I don't have all the facts and I can't put the genie back in the bottle.
This is an amazing way to express an extremely important concept, one that unfortunately doesn't have enough representation on the internet. Kudos.
This is an amazing way to express an extremely important concept, one that unfortunately doesn't have enough representation on the internet. Kudos.
Agreed. I do it all the time; especially with previous employers, and their competitors.
I am often told What A Bad Boy I Am, because I won't tell.
I cry myself to sleep over it, every night.
I am often told What A Bad Boy I Am, because I won't tell.
I cry myself to sleep over it, every night.
It's possible that it's more of a personal ethic and a view towards their own actions (something like, "I don't disparage others") rather than that they view this company as deserving protection.
The proliferation of "I don't disparage others" is how we got into this mess in the first place.
I feel like this happens every time we see one of her blog posts - she tries very hard to not provide any kind of specific information about anything she is writing about. Maybe it is to stop fanboys from harassing her when she trashes their favorite product or company, but it is the same technique used by people who are just making up stories.
> Maybe it is to stop fanboys from harassing her when she trashes their favorite product or company,
I assumed the opposite: she knows that she has readers who will go trash on the developers of whatever random app she happens to be criticizing and doesn't want to be responsible for inciting an internet mob.
In this case she provided enough information that anyone who was seriously concerned about their feed reader could easily find out if it was theirs—searching for the quoted text turns up the guilty RSS reader, her post, and a rip-off of the guilty reader which re-uses their marketing blurb.
That's easy enough for someone who's motivated to find out if they're safe, but maybe not enough for a mob to form?
I assumed the opposite: she knows that she has readers who will go trash on the developers of whatever random app she happens to be criticizing and doesn't want to be responsible for inciting an internet mob.
In this case she provided enough information that anyone who was seriously concerned about their feed reader could easily find out if it was theirs—searching for the quoted text turns up the guilty RSS reader, her post, and a rip-off of the guilty reader which re-uses their marketing blurb.
That's easy enough for someone who's motivated to find out if they're safe, but maybe not enough for a mob to form?
> read some feed containing something relatively private, guess what, they're reading it too
Everyone needs to accept the fact there's no such thing as a private URL. There are URLs that can be originally communicated to you privately—through a private channel, that is—but insisting on holding onto some (wrong) belief that we can or should be able to mint URLs that themselves possess some "private" quality goes against the fundamental design of the Web and what a URL even is.
(Yes, this does mean that every podcaster that implements subscriptions by giving one feed URL to free listeners and having listeners who pay for premium content use a different URL is fundamentally broken. Yes, this does mean that that big engineering organization that implemented file uploads and read/write access through slugs consisting of unguessable 128+ bit tokens is also wrong.)
Everyone needs to accept the fact there's no such thing as a private URL. There are URLs that can be originally communicated to you privately—through a private channel, that is—but insisting on holding onto some (wrong) belief that we can or should be able to mint URLs that themselves possess some "private" quality goes against the fundamental design of the Web and what a URL even is.
(Yes, this does mean that every podcaster that implements subscriptions by giving one feed URL to free listeners and having listeners who pay for premium content use a different URL is fundamentally broken. Yes, this does mean that that big engineering organization that implemented file uploads and read/write access through slugs consisting of unguessable 128+ bit tokens is also wrong.)
The issue is that the company can track what you are reading.
Unless there's an explicit reason not to, you should indeed assume that men in the middle will look at what you pass by them.
Then you have to decide for yourself if you're OK with that or not.
I know Microsoft looks at my files when I put them on my OneDrive. I take that into account when I decide what to put there. I know Google reads my mail when Thunderbird sends it through their SMTP servers. I know it'll be read by some unknown parties along the way to the recipient. I take that into account when I write my mail.
If I pasted a URL into a feed reader, I'd most certainly assume the app, and by extension its creators, would access that URL and read what's there. I'd take that into account when using the app.
Then you have to decide for yourself if you're OK with that or not.
I know Microsoft looks at my files when I put them on my OneDrive. I take that into account when I decide what to put there. I know Google reads my mail when Thunderbird sends it through their SMTP servers. I know it'll be read by some unknown parties along the way to the recipient. I take that into account when I write my mail.
If I pasted a URL into a feed reader, I'd most certainly assume the app, and by extension its creators, would access that URL and read what's there. I'd take that into account when using the app.
She didn't think there would be anyone in the middle! She expected the app to access the URL, and it did, but she didn't expect it to also send a copy to its creators. Like, what if you discovered that each time you send an email, Thunderbird also sends the email address you were writing to to a server owned by Mozilla?
> Like, what if you discovered that each time you send an email, Thunderbird also sends the email address you were writing to to a server owned by Mozilla?
Then I wouldn't be surprised.
I haven't read Thunderbirds privacy policy in detail, so for all I know there's a clause about collecting email addresses in there. Could even be for a good reason, spam filtering for example.
And as mentioned I take that into account when writing emails. I do indeed avoid writing certain stuff and avoid sending certain mails due to privacy. For the rest I see it as an acceptable risk/reward tradeoff.
I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but the innocence is gone when it comes to modern software.
Then I wouldn't be surprised.
I haven't read Thunderbirds privacy policy in detail, so for all I know there's a clause about collecting email addresses in there. Could even be for a good reason, spam filtering for example.
And as mentioned I take that into account when writing emails. I do indeed avoid writing certain stuff and avoid sending certain mails due to privacy. For the rest I see it as an acceptable risk/reward tradeoff.
I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but the innocence is gone when it comes to modern software.
Nothing is ever truly 100% private, but certain things are "private enough".
A password can be leaked just as well as any URL, particularly if the password needs to be periodically sent to a downstream server to do the feed polling, and hence stored in plaintext.
URLs generally have less protection than a password because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves), but the protection they do have is often enough.
You protect podcast feeds for revenue, not privacy. The negligible loss of revenue you're going to experience if somebody hacks into a feed reader isn't worth inventing a new protocol. You need to protect against abusive sharing of URLs by authorized users anyway, usually by having a system that forces the url to be re-generated when it's getting too many visits, so if one of these databases becomes fully public, the problem is already solved anyway.
A password can be leaked just as well as any URL, particularly if the password needs to be periodically sent to a downstream server to do the feed polling, and hence stored in plaintext.
URLs generally have less protection than a password because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves), but the protection they do have is often enough.
You protect podcast feeds for revenue, not privacy. The negligible loss of revenue you're going to experience if somebody hacks into a feed reader isn't worth inventing a new protocol. You need to protect against abusive sharing of URLs by authorized users anyway, usually by having a system that forces the url to be re-generated when it's getting too many visits, so if one of these databases becomes fully public, the problem is already solved anyway.
> URLs generally have less protection than a password
That's an understatement. Passwords are supposed to be private by design. URLs are not.
> because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves)
That's simply not true. URLs don't have protection because the notion of a private URL is a flat-out contradiction. As I said before: it goes against the fundamental design of the Web.
URLs are not in any sense designed to be private. Like, at all. If anything, they are designed not to be private. URLs are by their nature public information[1]. Anyone who believes or wishes otherwise is someone who believes or wishes that the Web is something other than the thing actually proposed, designed, and implemented.
Anyone can, at their own peril, try to devise other higher-level systems that exploit implementation details and other incidentals in non-normative ways while trying to justify it on the basis that it jibes with what you have observed in practice. You are also free to design a content-protection scheme that hinges on the whitespace in the client request varying just so, or where the HTTP heADEr naMEs follow a suPEr seCREt caPITALIZATIOn coNVENTIOn, etc. But no one else has any obligation to conform to the expectations necessarily prescribed by those lame designs nor to commit themselves to any action/inaction implied.
"Leaking URLs" is a non-offense.
1. <https://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypert...>
That's an understatement. Passwords are supposed to be private by design. URLs are not.
> because that's how we design a lot of our systems (and this is a property of our systems and not of the URLs themselves)
That's simply not true. URLs don't have protection because the notion of a private URL is a flat-out contradiction. As I said before: it goes against the fundamental design of the Web.
URLs are not in any sense designed to be private. Like, at all. If anything, they are designed not to be private. URLs are by their nature public information[1]. Anyone who believes or wishes otherwise is someone who believes or wishes that the Web is something other than the thing actually proposed, designed, and implemented.
Anyone can, at their own peril, try to devise other higher-level systems that exploit implementation details and other incidentals in non-normative ways while trying to justify it on the basis that it jibes with what you have observed in practice. You are also free to design a content-protection scheme that hinges on the whitespace in the client request varying just so, or where the HTTP heADEr naMEs follow a suPEr seCREt caPITALIZATIOn coNVENTIOn, etc. But no one else has any obligation to conform to the expectations necessarily prescribed by those lame designs nor to commit themselves to any action/inaction implied.
"Leaking URLs" is a non-offense.
1. <https://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypert...>
URLs are just as private as passwords.
In, fact URLs by design explicitly supported passwords.
In, fact URLs by design explicitly supported passwords.
Of which as bit so many people in the ass so many times that anyone with any security sense will tell you "Don't do that". There are just too many ways URLs leak because there is little difference between security context with users.
Can’t tell if “clown” is an incredible typo in the submission or some comment on the owner of the offending platform, but either way I’m all about it
I don't have some exquisite etymology to link to, and I can't speak to Rachel's personal context, but I'm quite confident that anti-corporate Americans of a certain age will read "the clown" as a reference to Ronald McDonald, in much the same way that "the mouse" means Mickey Mouse, i.e. Disney.
From the title I thought this was going to be about security issues with McDonald's WiFi.
It must just refer to the Cloud in a derogatory way, not the particular platform. It sounds so similar.
As a former would-be user of the cloud-to-butt extension, “clown” is a term I can truly get behind.
It's been pretty common (derogatory) slang for "the cloud" for many years in certain circles I am in, so I assume that was the usage hear.
The clown emoji is also useful in this regard in SSIDs or strings in programs (breaks all sorts of things that it shouldn't too)
The clown emoji is also useful in this regard in SSIDs or strings in programs (breaks all sorts of things that it shouldn't too)
>slang for "the cloud"
Never had heard that but it was obvious from the title.
Cloud quite often is clown-computing, or maybe clown-car-computing.
Never had heard that but it was obvious from the title.
Cloud quite often is clown-computing, or maybe clown-car-computing.
Elastic Compute Clowncar braking in 3, 2, 1
I assumed Facebook i.e. Clowntown
Cloud to Clown substitution plugin?
I made a bookmarklet that makes reading articles easier so that no browser extensions or reader apps need to access the data. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40588645
I thought every feed reader did this. Well the ones with a server anyways.
Sorry, but I just don't see the "bad behavior" in polling a URL you purposefully requested it to retrieve.
URLs are not secrets. Don't treat them as such.
URLs are not secrets. Don't treat them as such.
She expected it to retrieve the URL to her own device, but it also sent it to the company that makes the app. That like if Chrome sent Google a list of all URLs you visit, people would definitely be angry about that.
> That like if Chrome sent Google a list of all URLs you visit, people would definitely be angry about that.
I have bad news for you… the general public won’t care.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/microsoft-edge-is-sending-all...
I have bad news for you… the general public won’t care.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/microsoft-edge-is-sending-all...
That doesn't prove that people don't care, just that Microsoft doesn't care about people.
Except Chrome indeed sends up all URLs you browse, at least by default/outside of incognito mode.
Are you talking about encrypted sync data or something else?
Both autosuggest[1] and Safe Browsing[2] sends URLs or "portion of" URLs home to Google.
At least Google is fairly transparent about it, if you look for it. And I'd trust them way more than a tiny company making a "dime a dozen" app.
[1]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/13730681?hl=en#zipp...
[2]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/13844634?hl=en&ref_...
At least Google is fairly transparent about it, if you look for it. And I'd trust them way more than a tiny company making a "dime a dozen" app.
[1]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/13730681?hl=en#zipp...
[2]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/13844634?hl=en&ref_...
Doesn't safe browsing use a bloom filter to minimize those checks?
Yeah autosuggest is there and it has a toggle. But that's still far from every URL you browse.
Yeah autosuggest is there and it has a toggle. But that's still far from every URL you browse.
There is approximately zero point in calling out the bad behaviour of anonymous applications.
It's probably not a callout post and more of a venting/"talking about my day" kinda post.
Wanted to post it. Posted it.
If you think more "point" than that is necessary, you are deeply confused about a great many things.
If you think more "point" than that is necessary, you are deeply confused about a great many things.
Why didn't you want to post a couple more characters of the app name you were examining?
Of all the comments here what was the point of only replying to that one?
Of all the comments here what was the point of only replying to that one?
Which one? No names were named at any point in this post.