Slashdot Mirror
Reuters Accused Of Hacking For Typing In URL
Aexia writes "Intentia International, a company in Sweden, is suing Reuters for publishing an earnings report posted on their website prior to its official release. The catch? The report couldn't be accessed through 'normal channels', you had to know, or guess, what address to type in order to retrieve it. The precedent this case sets will be interesting. If you don't use a hyperlink on a website, are you committing a crime? You can also read Intentia's take on the situation."
Here's a related thread from yesterday.
First, Reuters' position would probably be that the data was on a public network which was in plain view as long as the url is typed in. I myself do this all the time, why go to www.microsoft.com, click once on support, then click on download when I know the url I want is www.microsoft.com/download. It saves time and trouble. However their "accidental" stumbling upon of this data, which is far more important than anything I'd ever likely find on accident would most likely not fall into the same category. IANAL, but at the same time I would argue that anything they don't want leaked shouldn't be put online anyway, and espically without any security.
However, I can see Intentia International's point of view. What's to stop someone from simply hitting their webserver with every alpha-numeric combination possible. They'll eventually come across the correct one for some piece of information which had gone previously undiscovered because it was to be placed up at a time which was decided by Intentia or any other company for that matter. I could see a moldy old judge siding with them, saying that using "www.intentia.com/~a2eslcf/info/docs/hidden883/fin ancial reports.html" for example would constitute an attempt at placing some level of security on the data for the time being, almost a password. And, scarily enough if they showed a direct relationship between all pages not yet linked and their corresponding URL perhalps a big fat DMCA case might come about if Reuters or someone figured that "~a2eslcf" meant "third quarter" in some sorry 2 bit encryption.
Here in Denmark we have a similar (but more serious) case. A micro-payment system called Valus owned and developed by a Norwegian bank (Den Norske Bank) was "hacked" on its premiere day by typing in a simple URL with the command SHUTDOWN at the end. The link to do this was published on an online debate forum and several people tried the link (although it had a warning that you should not try it:-). The problem was missing input validation (maybe the most basic security issue). Until now five people have been taken to court - one of them being the "mastermind" who posted the link. As a reaction to this behaviour Valus has been reported to the state agency for protection of personal data (Datatilsynet) for not securing personal data.
"The investigation has been detailed and has included all relevant staff and processes that handle confidential information, as well as technical security," said Thomas Ahlerup, Head of Corporate and Investor relations of Intentia International AB.
While most everyone here will agree that Reuters at worst could have their actions describe as exploiting Intentia's utter stupidity, quotes like this show how little some people know about computers. This guy obviously thinks that just because they didn't provide an explicit hyperlink that the data on their server is "confidential." What I fear is that some non-technology savvy judge will actually follow this same train of thought and rule against Reuters. Is this ridiculous? Yes. Is it unfortunately all too real of a possibility? Yes as well.
PS - I checked Netcraft and they are running Windows 2000. Is it any surprise that their security guys would believe that data freely available on their server is secure if they also think a server on Win2k is secure in the first place?
If they were to prosecute in the UK - I note Reuters replied to the allegations from their London HQ - here's what the law says:
So, it's quite straightforward really - if they can prove Reuters knew they weren't supposed to be looking at that material, then if the access was from the UK, a crime was committed.If Reuters can argue they didn't know the material was private, there is no case to answer.
Going back to the points some others have made about the information being publicaly accessible with no .htaccess protection, clearly this doesn't matter. If, for example, you were to make a clcik through that had to be viewed before you could see any of the content that stated the information was confidential then someone not supposed to be viewing it would be committing a crime to do so.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
1. These people are experts.
2. From a practical viewpoint, it should not have been on that server if it wasn't to be served. Anyone with sensitive data should at least be able to employ that measure.
3. Why should they have legal recourse against typing things in the address bar of a browser?
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
Yesterday, I, as an IT professional that makes purchasing decision for a large organisation, had never heard from this company. Now I know they make Collaborative Solutions. All it cost them was a bogus courtcase with Reuters.
This is clever marketing, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone can spot the lack of merits of this case from a mile away. Brand and name recognition of this company is soaring though. I wonder how their stock price is taking it?
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Frankly, this is a pretty bad way to get your name out - an IT company that doesn't understand the web any better than this? I wouldn't hire them to do anything, they sound totally incompetent. But they say any publicity is good publicity...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
There was a similar case in Australia a few years ago, so please forgive me for not going into great detail, as my memory is no longer photographic.
n ={his-tax-file-number} and wondered how good the security was. So of course, he types in another tax file number in the address field to test it.
It seems there was an Asutralian Government site for information about your tax status. You entered your tax file number (same as the US SSN), plus a little more information to verify your identity, and then were shown a page with some tax information of some sort.
One man noticed that the page he was eventually directed to was http://somethingsomething.gov.au/something.asp?tf
BLING! Someone else's tax information pops up! No security at all, someone had just dumped this simple database-access script on the web for all to see! He tells someone in the tax department (big mistake) about the security flaw and POW a piano falls on his head. Metaphorically speaking.
Are there any Aussies in the audience who remember any more details about this one? It was at least 3 years ago.. can't remember the final outcome.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Better analogy: the video store put "Episode I" DVDs on the shelf early thinking that since they hadn't advertised they had them they'd be safe. A customer looking in the obvious location (next to the "later" releases) found the video and told his friend. The store got pissy and complained. That's a better analogy.
If you do a Google search for intentia results, at least one early entry points to the Intentia 'press room' containing an earlier quarterly results announcement. The announcement page itself does have a 24 bit hex ID number in the URL (BA45EE etc) that would be hard to guess for a new quarter. But on the announcement page is this link:
Now the URL (which no longer works, natch) of the PDF file being linked to: is extremely easy to extrapolate to subsequent quarters. I have no doubt that's what Reuters did , for this company and many others with similarly easy naming schemes and early uploading schedules. And I have no doubt that other journalists pull the same trick. In this case, a company with results they'd rather nobody noticed has jumped at the opportunity to change the subject.My college protects grades a similar way before they're released, last semester I started publishing a form in my web space (hosted on their server :)) that allows you to get your grades (presumably) as soon as they're scanned in, several days before their intended release. I don't know if anyone on staff noticed and/or cared; it may be that the official release time is just there to prevent complaining about "she got her grades before I could". All that was required to make the form was stripping down their grade submit page and changing one of the options in a select.