| ▲ | We Took over ChatGPT Accounts(parameter.ai) |
| 109 points by armcat 4 hours ago | 54 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | yellow_lead 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > OpenAI confirmed both frontends rejected the reported messages, resolved the issue, and awarded a total bounty of $5,000. It requires the user to click a link. But I still find this bounty very low. Others may not report them if such a small bounty is given. |
| |
| ▲ | jryle70 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | OpenAI acknowledging and fixing the bug is worth millions | |
| ▲ | dgellow 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s so low. That’s the level of bounty I awarded researchers when I was managing the bug bounty program at a small startup, it’s just ridiculous coming from a large company like OpenAI | |
| ▲ | dist-epoch 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a pet peeve of tptacek: > server-side vulnerabilities are worth very little, because they quickly get patched. | | |
| ▲ | dannyw an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The "take over any instagram/meta account through their AI password reset chatbot" was going around and sold on shady forums for ~1 month before being patched. | |
| ▲ | throwaw12 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | then server side vulnerabilities should not be reported, instead sell the data, more profitable |
| |
| ▲ | thatsabadlook an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not worth the effort for a company supposedly worth a trillion dollars. The problem is oai can't afford all of its mistakes at the usual rate and they make bad press. A 100k bug could make a headline, but 5k for the same bug requires the average person to be educated enough to understand how bad these issues are. | | | |
| ▲ | varispeed 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed, it's like "here peasant, have this fortune of $5,000, may it change your life". Pathetic. | | |
| ▲ | siva7 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | that wouldn't be the time worth of many people here to make the security report for OAI.. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jareklupinski 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > able to take over anyone's account simply by sending them a link dont click links people that'll be $500k for the security training pls |
| |
| ▲ | kro 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they or their company use email "security" software that "scans" all links it's not necessarily the users fault / they don't in fact click. The mail is auto-confirmed the second it hits the inbox. We've had to change our registration confirmation mails too recently to not confirm on GET only, but with another form - in hindsight it was stupid before but many services do that. | | |
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > We've had to change our registration confirmation mails too recently to not confirm on GET only, but with another form - in hindsight it was stupid before but many services do that. This has been a thing since forever lol | |
| ▲ | gokulravi992 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | TobTobXX 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ... says IT and then it sets Outlook to mangle link to abominations like [0]. "Check if the preview shows something different or suspicious." [0]: https://che01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A... | | |
| ▲ | Antipode an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I've worked at a company that did link mangling on everything except simulated phishing emails. The effect was that people were trained to trust the mangled links. | |
| ▲ | 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | dist-epoch 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wanted to check your website from your profile, but then I remembered your advice. Thanks!, dodged a potential bullet | |
| ▲ | bossyTeacher 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also many emails from tech companies today: - "sign in via one-time code." - "Click here to see our latest update". | | | |
| ▲ | Razengan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thanks! Here, click on this link to get paid | |
| ▲ | gib444 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | usernametaken29 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Now what about those millions of lines of code? Wasn’t the agent swarm supposed to take care of it?
All jokes aside this is exactly what happens as you build larger monoliths, system complexity and bug surface increases logarithmically… so in all seriousness you want to reduce LOC as much as possible. Maybe this can teach OpenAI a lesson to produce software that’s correct and adhere to established engineering standards over sensationalised “we built so much code” promotional material. |
| |
| ▲ | torben-friis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you mean exponentially? Logarithmic increase doesn't sound too bad. | |
| ▲ | Pannoniae 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it's not like microservices fare better, when you introduce them, you've traded a hard problem for a hard problem and distributed computing... | | |
| ▲ | wg0 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Our industry has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on this shit show called Microservices. 99.9% of shops need a monolith with same monolith having entry points for background workers and crons. |
| |
| ▲ | elendilm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reducing attack surface is a lesson for everyone. Newcomers are impressed by massive piles of code. Seasoned developers are unimpressed, or even disgusted, by the same massive piles of code. | | |
| ▲ | someothherguyy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | i don't think LoC is the metric. sometimes fewer lines of code results in a larger attack surface through type coercion / widening, poor abstractions, hiding or stuffing behavior (modules that do everything), etc. to me, making code easy to understand, test, fuzz, and verify is more important. sometimes that requires more lines of code. | | |
| ▲ | brazukadev an hour ago | parent [-] | | LoC *IS* the metric. It is obviously not perfect tho but still the best one to compare software surface. Including to compare the same solution in different languages and platforms. The less code you need to manage, the less code you need to change and the less code you need to hold in your head to understand it (or in the LLM context nowadays). |
| |
| ▲ | latexr 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.folklore.org/Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.html |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lxgr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oof. Together with the fact that it's possible to remotely access the file system (!) of computers ever having started a "Work" chat in the ChatGPT desktop app [1], this seems pretty bad. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50078284 |
|
| ▲ | dumberquestions 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does no one write their own blogs anymore? |
| |
| ▲ | zx8080 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For who? | | | |
| ▲ | lifeisloving 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This one is particularly bad, like they probably made $7500 (not much tbh) for p1, atleast spend a few hours to write the blog post. |
|
|
| ▲ | 6thbit an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Appreciate the incremental write up building up the scope of the poc. I like the chain of regular old school things used to achieve it like post message, JSONP, iframe, Img tags. |
|
| ▲ | atrokhymchuk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| if only they had some sort of cybersecurity state of the art thing... |
|
| ▲ | monster_truck an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| only $5000 for this, lmao. It should be $50k out of pure shame. If they don't make these things hurt just a little they're never going to take following best practices seriously enough. There will be 9 more anyways. Meanwhile the actual user of the account probably has to sign in using a yubikey because they get "CyBeRsEcRuItY aLeRtS" when they try to update node in their project to fix a crash and have to switch to daybreak blue to continue (or attempt to trick the normal models into doing it and risk getting autobanned) |
|
| ▲ | 15o9o 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| we are getting to the point of “why have passwords?” Right? At some point soon we have to move to the honor system of just please don’t login as me? |
| |
| ▲ | qup an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | My latest project emails a magic link. I'm trying not to have any important data to even lose, when I eventually get hacked. We can all turn up our noses, like the other commenters in this thread, but every one of them is exposed. Negligence is a matter of degrees. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I'm trying not to have any important data to even lose This is the way. Respect user privacy and keep as little data as possible, and not only do you become a less attractive target, if you are targeted the outcome won’t be so bad. |
| |
| ▲ | chamomeal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Been sayin this for years. Everybody in the world world: just BE COOL. Solves like every internet problem at once. | | |
| ▲ | 15o9o 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | we all joke but spiritual communities have been saying this is the way for years. Like the law of one stuff. |
| |
| ▲ | dataviz1000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > please don’t login as me Please don't drain my $6.5 billion in Dogecoin. |
|
|
| ▲ | marwaneet 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Another classic OAuth implementation failure. Mismanaging the state parameter or leaking tokens via referer headers in redirects is Security 101. Wild to see this in a production environment of this scale. |
| |
| ▲ | brabel an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The post seems to be talking about a html injection via a postMessage call where the receiver didn’t check who sent the message, which is a well known vulnerability entry point. Did I miss where OAuth had anything to do with this?? | |
| ▲ | steve1977 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Production scale is not production grade I guess... |
|
|
| ▲ | frank00001 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | msarda_23 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
