Slashdot Mirror
Bug In Lowe's Site Sold Goods For Free. Couple Arrested For Exploiting It (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A couple from the Brick Township in New Jersey stands accused of using a flaw in the Lowes online portal to receive goods for free at their home. According to the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, the couple tried to steal goods worth $258,068.01, but only managed to receive approximately $12,971.23 worth of merchandise. Officers executing a search warrant said the residence resembled "more of a warehouse than a home." Investigators said they recovered enough merchandise to fill an 18-foot trailer. Most items were in their original packaging and still had their price tags. Police say one of the suspects posted ads for some of the stolen goods on a Facebook group used to buy and sell used objects. The suspect was selling most of the items at half the price offered on the Lowes website. Authorities did not provide in-depth technical details but revealed the flaw resided in the site's gift card module.
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
More like if Lowes self checkout station set the price on some goods at $0 if they were scanned upside-down, and people just checked out and left. And then got arrested.
Don't be silly. This wasn't just Lowe's not noticing some stealthy action, this was Lowe's willingly packing up and shopping the goods to the couple after receiving no money.
Given the volume and value of the goods, I find it hard to believe that the couple had no idea it wasn't just a really good deal, but I can somewhat see why they might not have fully realized it was a crime.
Hopefully, they will be required to return the goods and receive a non-custodial sentence and a stern warning.
Many years ago I bought my current desk from the OfficeMax store for $55. Several months later I got an OfficeMax coupon for $50 off ANY desk with no other restrictions listed. So I went back to the store, pulled the desk off the shelf, and presented the coupon to the cashier clerk. The register refused to accept the coupon. When the manager came over, I pointed out the word "ANY" on the coupon, and he overrode the register. I got a $55 desk for $5 plus tax. Later on I got another $50 coupon without the word "ANY" and restricted to $500+ desks.
This is more like those people hearing about that trick (or maybe finding out themselves), then making sure they scanned every item upside down. It's similar to incorrectly priced items, and over here (NL) the law is sort of clear on that. If an item is priced too low by accident (or rung up incorrectly at the register), the customer gets to keep the purchase at the lower price... unless there is a "clearly apparent mistake". A €1000 TV priced at €800 would not be a clear mistake; a €200 discount would be a really good one, but plausible. That same TV priced at €100 is clearly a mistake though. Same as someone who manages to order over $18.000 worth of goods on a $20 gift gard because of a flaw in the system. Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here. How does that work in the States?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
When a consumer exploits a bug in the system, they get arrested. When a corporation or rich person exploits a bug in the system, it's called, "smart tax planning".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
How would a warehouse worker or truck driver know that the customer wasn't correctly charged by the website for their purchase?
Come on everybody. This is Slashdot. We need a car analogy.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
If they exploited the flaw over and over and over again, then I would think yes. Just like the couple allegedly did in TFS.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So that customer found multiple vulnerabilities in Lowe's order fulfillment process. I think that's worth a bug bounty of well over $13k. Lowe's should say thank you and call it even.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
how many people would be saying that it's not really theft if Lowes didn't prevent it from happening.
And you were correct in your assumption. Looking below, one can find many people blaming Lowe's. Not the criminals who deliberately exploited this flaw, not the criminals who were trying to resell their ill-gotten goods, not the criminals with piles of merchandise they obviously knew were stolen. Nope, it's all on Lowe's.
One can imagine a scenario where people who go to Lowe's, pick up an item and walk out of the store without paying for it would be considered completely absolved of their crime because Lowe's didn't prevent it from happening.
It's amazing the excuses used to justify criminal behavior.
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
If they exploited the flaw over and over and over again, then I would think yes. Just like the couple allegedly did in TFS.
Exactly. I f they stumbled onto a "great deal" once and bought it I would say they shouldn't be charged with a crime. However, find over 250k$ of "good deals" (as their lawyer claims) crosses the line into criminal, IMHO.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
No one's going to catch that bit of drift unless you provide serious amounts of lube.
So, assuming you get that handled, what time do you want to come over?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
In the Army there's a lot of delegation and division of duties. I've seen this used and abused. A fellow recruit (happened to be prior service Marine so he knew the system better than I) and I needed to get some luggage before getting our orders but we knew that if we simply asked for permission to go to the PX it would likely be denied. He just said to follow him and I did, I watched him go from one sergeant to the next with BS and half truths and in 20 minutes we were walking to the PX. He just did a Jedi mind trick on three sergeants to get us what we wanted. That's a pretty mild abuse of the system and if someone ever asked too many questions it would have been a "don't do that again" warning.
Another recruit would like to pull this trick by claiming "Sergeant Major says..." which got annoying real quick. Going to ask the Sergeant Major every time would have taken more time than just doing what he asked and I don't know if he got nailed on it. I got my luggage and my orders and I was gone before that happened.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Most references to US law imply that they would need to return the merchandise or pay for it if it is an obvious error in pricing. However this all probably depends on how they received the discount on the merchandise. If it was a coupon code or certain methods of clicking, then they are probably ok. However of they say used something like the Chrome inspector to change prices submitted to the backend then they are probably liable for theft and/or hacking.
Okay, car analogy...
Imagine your car goes to the Lowes website to buy tires. Your car finds out a way to get the tires shipped to the house without paying for them. Your car is now selling the tires at half price on eBay, and for some reason you don't mind a pile of tires in your garage. Now, should your car be sent to prison for this, or should your car have the remaining tires returned and then told to... retire... from selling things on eBay?
No, don't get up, I can find the exit myself.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Did Lowe's contact them, submit a ticket complaining about the problem? Unless they spent 3 hours waiting on the phone, I think they jumped the gun calling the police.
Sounds ridiculous? Well that is what Wells Fargo was doing to its customers and it was called an accounting error. Trying calling the police on Wells Fargo when they are making up bank accounts in your name, or forcing you to buy un-requested care insurance.
That's Lowe's problem, or at least it should be. If a company is like a person then there's no excuse. If you ask a person to ship you free things, and they do, then I fail to see how this is a crime.
On top of that, theres intent to sell.
If you get a $250 discount off a $1000 TV by accident and then keep that TV for yourself, the law is pretty much going to ignore you.
But if you get a $250 discount off a $1000 TV by accident but then use said accident to buy 500 TVs and proceed to re-sell all 500 TVs for $900, the law will happily slap you down.
I dunno. $750 might very well be a reasonable price for the item. If you bought 500 of them in good faith, and sold them to get the arbitrage, I think it might be hard to prosecute you. (Dealer authorization issues notwithstanding.)
On the other hand, if you got them for a price that was indisputably far below their market value because of a glitch in the seller's software, then I think the law can step in.
In either case, it's probably up to the courts to decide who prevails. As it should be.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You said 'Court' but I want to point out, it's not for the judge to decide, it's for the Jury. This is why we have Jury trials. Specifically it's supposed to be your 'peers.'
The question is asked, "Do you think this person is guilty of stealing from this company?"
The judge says, "This is what the law is and what it says."
The lawyers say, "this is what the defendant did or didn't do."
Then it's up to the Jury to decide if what the defendant did or didn't do counts as breaking the law.
Sometimes it's cut and dried...but if it was always black and white like that we wouldn't need juries. Juries are specifically for cases like this where the people say, "Yes, I ordered all that stuff, but I didn't think it was breaking the law." The people on the jury say, "You know...I probably wouldn't have known it was against the law either." or they say, "Don't be an idiot. That's obviously against the law." That's why they are supposed to be 'peers.' People who 'generally' think the way you do.
Other examples of 'great jury fodder' is self-defense. "I would have done the exact same thing in the situation."
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
The rest of your comment aside, a warehouse worker or truck driver shouldn't need to know the price of the items they are packing and delivering - they get their marching orders from a printout (or electronic message) that tells them what to pack and likely prints a shipping label for them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
There are a number of occasions in England where a jury's refusal to convict whistleblowers for releasing embarrassing state 'secrets' have done a lot to reign in the government. Yes, you pay a price in terms of some real crimes being unprosecutable as well - receiving stolen goods for example - but overall I think the price is worth paying.
So does your definition of 'civilised' equal 'authoritarian'?