a1a
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
That's the best case. Worst case you end up with a memory vulernability (see heartbleed https://xkcd.com/1354/)
2) So do drunk drivers that crash.
3) You're arguing against yourself. Yes, it's bad that bad guys get notified so they can avoid checkpoints.
4) Shouldn't law enforcement spend their time enforcing the law? It's well spent time IMO. As you say in (1), they also solve other more serious crimes (e.g. finding wanted criminals)
I agree that the impact is low compared to other vulnerabilities. It is definitely the case that you get a t-shirt (at best) for it. Though, my point is that they could be critical for the users, not for the website itself. An attacker that don't really care about the vulnerable website can still exploit the trust in the vulnerable website to perform attacks on the user he is interested in (e.g. hash stealing or malicious redirects). In fact, I believe malicious redirects is a really common payload of XSS flaws.
Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have broken the law. [2] [3]
Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as").
[1] https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.html
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-...
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of-non-...
Seriously though, the statement is ignorant at best. Please help me understand the point of posting it?