• fl42v@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    instead of in an encrypted format on its internal systems.

    Riiight, like that’s any better. Jokes aside, it’s hard to imagine what kind of “mistake” results in storing plain text instead of hashing, unless the mistake was in choosing whoever made the security assessment

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      There was a previous article on this with more explanation that I’m struggling to find.

      The gist was that they do hash all passwords stored, the problem was that there was a mistake made with the internal tool they use to do that hashing which led to the passwords inadvertently going into some log system.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        “mistake”

        I call BS. The reviews I’ve gone through for trivial stuff would’ve exposed this.

        This was intentional.

        • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hanlon’s Razor revised: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, except where there is an established pattern of malice.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Then incompetence at a level that’s incomprehensible.

            A code review certainly exposed this, and some manager signed off on the risk.

            Again, changes I make are trivial in comparison, and our code/risk reviews would’ve exposed this in no time.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, cause trivial systems are a lot easier to parse and review. At a base level that’s nonsense logic.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            My point being the extensiveness of a review process.

            The more important a system, the more people it impacts, etc, the more extensive the review process.

            Someone chose to ignore this risk. That’s intentional.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You quite frankly, don’t know what happened and if you’re confident it’s intentional, all that says is that you’re a grump who likes to complain.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I generally agree.

            But any decent code review process would’ve exposed this, or at least a data surveillance system that checks this stuff. I’ve received a few notifications about my logs storing inappropriate data, as a result of a scanning system.

            Some manager knew about this during a code review, and signed off on the risk because it was only in-house.