this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
827 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
11 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hope this isn't a repeated submission. Funny how they're trying to deflect blame after they tried to change the EULA post breach.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, 23AndMe has some culpability here, but the lions share is still in the users themselves

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me.

If 14,000 users who didn't change a password on a single use website they probably only ever logged into twice gives you 6.9 million user's personal info, that's the company's fault.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

You didn't read it either. They gained access to shared information between the accounts because both accounts had enabled "share my info with my relatives" option.

Logging into someones Facebook and seeing their friends and all the stuff they posted as "friends only" and their private DM discussions isn't a hack or a vulnerability, it's how the website works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It doesn't matter. It is a known attack and the company should have implemented measures against it.

At the very least, they should have made a threat modeling exercise and concluded that with this sharing feature, the compromise of a single account can lead to compromise of data for other users. One possible conclusion is that users who shared data should be forced to have 2fa.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

It doesn't matter. It is a known attack and the company should have implemented measures against it.

At the very least, they should have made a threat modeling exercise and concluded that with this sharing feature, the compromise of a single account can lead to compromise of data for other users. One possible conclusion is that users who shared data should be forced to have 2fa.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Laughing a feature that lets an inevitable attack access 500 other people's info for every comprimised account is a glaring security failure.

Accounting for foreseeable risks to users' data is the company's responsibility and they launched a feature that made a massive breach inevitable. It's not the users' fault for opting in to a feature that obviously should never have been launched.