Because it is transparently obvious that it’s going to happen.

If you’re sending your users’ private statuses to an ActivityPub server, and just hoping that it’s going to choose to keep them private according to certain parameters even though that’s not what the spec stays it needs to do, then you’re fucking up. The fact that we know that particular instances of particular software are exposing them is a nice demonstration of the harm, a confirmation that you’re fucking up when you’re doing that, but it’s not really needed. It is the absolutely predictable result of some basic principles of security which, as a security researcher, you should absolutely be aware of.

I’ve repeatedly explained this. You’ve repeatedly explained your position. We’ve both had our say. You seem addicted to the concept of “winning” the conversation and wanting to just go back and forth. In that case I would really encourage you to state your position again, and I can state mine again, and we can both have fun doing that for a while. Want to? It sounds like a productive use of both of our time. It’s fun, too.

Edit: Actually, I didn’t even realize you are on fedia.io when I was typing this. You can test for yourself whether mbin does this, too, by coordinating with @Irelephant@lemm.ee. Follow his user, then have him post one of those private statuses, then fetch his user profile via fedia.io from an incognito window and see whether the private statuses show up. I have no idea whether they will, but if I had to guess, I would say it’s better than even odds.

Are you hoping to restart our disagreement through sheer passive-aggressiveness? Okay, sure.

In my view, this is a Mastodon design flaw (or a user-expectation issue or whatever you want to call it.) I already said that, and you’re involved in the unproductive-arguer’s pastime of pretending not to understand that that’s my position, and just aggressively repeatedly reframing things according to your position and hoping I’ll knuckle under to it through sheer force of repetition.

I’m not super invested in trying to track down each and every software that might manage to expose the “private” statuses in this way. I just know that as things come and go there are guaranteed to be some. If you have an mbin account and Mastodon account, though, we can try a little experiment. I don’t know the outcome, I’m just curious after taking a quick look down the FediDB list and a quick grep through mbin’s source code. You can be the one to responsibly disclose to mbin how their ActivityPub-conforming behavior is a problem, if indeed it turns out that it is, since you seem to be extremely committed to the idea that the model of “vulnerability” needs to be applied to this particular ActivityPub-conforming behavior. Since you’re a security researcher, having that as a CVE you discovered can be an achievement for you. It’s all yours, you can have it.

Hm… maybe. The exact nature of the problem in Pixelfed means that anyone with a Pixelfed account on a server which is getting private statuses can choose to follow someone who’s set to “approve followers” and then read all the private statuses. I do see how that’s significantly worse than just the normal lay-of-the-land of the problem, which is a little more random, and laying that out as a little roadmap to read someone else’s private statuses before there’s been a nice responsible length of time for things to get fixed could be seen as worsening the problem.

The point that I’m making is that anyone who’s posting private statuses to Mastodon and expecting them to stay private is making a bad mistake already. The structure of the protocol is such that they can’t be assured of staying private regardless of what Pixelfed did or even if Pixelfed didn’t exist. They’re getting federated to servers whose behavior is not assured, in a way where a conformant ActivityPub implementation can expose them. People who are posting private statuses need to understand that.

That whole blog post where the person is talking about her partner writing private statuses, and then the gut-wrenching realization that they were being exposed on Pixelfed… but then the resolution being “Pixelfed fucked up I hate Dansup now” and then continuing to post the private statuses, is wrong. That person’s partner needs to stop treating their private posts on Mastodon that way. The timer for responsible disclosure started circa 2017 or whenever Mastodon decided on how to implement their private statuses. It’s been and gone.

Like I say, I get the harm-reduction aspect of saying it would have been better if Dansup was a little more discreet about this particularly bad attack vector until a few more days went by for everyone to upgrade. But it hardly matters. There are still server softwares our there that are going to be exposing people’s private Mastodon posts. It’s just how federation between untrusted servers works. Giving people the illusion that if Dan had just been more discreet then this harm would have been reduced is lulling them into a false sense of security, in my view.

Maybe I’m wrong, but shouldn’t posts only be insecure if they’re propagated to the insecure instance?

“Insecure” in this case simply means any server that doesn’t implement Mastodon’s custom handling for “private” posts. With that definition, the answer to your question is yes. It has been mentioned by Mastodon people that this is a significant problem for the ability to actually keep these private posts private in the real world. The chance of it going wrong is small (depending on your follower count) but the potential for harm is very large. I would therefore go further, and say that it’s a very bad thing that Mastodon is telling people that these posts are “private” when the mechanism which is supposed to keep them private is so unreliable.

https://marrus-sh.github.io/mastodon-info/everything-you-need-to-know-about-privacy-v1.3-020170427.html

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/712

Is any private post visible to people on servers that the poster doesn’t have followers on?

It is not. If you’re sufficiently careful with approving your followers, making sure that each of them is on an instance that’s going to handle private posts the way you expect, then you’re probably fine.

Could I curl the uri of a post thats “private” and get the post’s content?

If it’s been federated to an insecure server then yes. If not then I think no.

Yeah, you said that stuff before and then you said it again. I do understand what your argument is here. I was trying a couple of different ways of explaining what I was saying in response, but it seems like it’s not working. Oh well.

I’ve said nothing about any spec violation. That’s not relevant.

It has everything to do with ActivityPub since if you follow that protocol strictly you will cause this behavior.

That’s what I was going by. I guess I could re-read this now and interpret “this behavior” as Pixelfed’s side, instead of Mastodon’s side as I initially read it, and decide that you are agreeing with me that Mastodon’s behavior was (and is) out of spec? Do I have that right?

It still doesn’t change that Dansup was told that this caused Bad Things™ and yet he didn’t follow normal procedure in how you handle it.

It is normal procedure to fix a bug when you are notified about it.

The design flaw in Mastodon that managed to bite Pixelfed in this situation still exists. People were writing about it back in 2017 when this was all being first implemented. The idea that “normal procedure” needs to include keeping it a secret that Mastodon’s “private” statuses can be exposed by any server software that doesn’t handle them in the way that’s expected, is 100% wrong.

I’ll rephrase what I said earlier: Since you’re a security researcher, and you apparently think Dan should have played into the idea of keeping it a secret that Mastodon’s private statuses are not secret by obfuscating the information about how he was fixing Pixelfed to more effectively hide them, you are bad at your job. In this instance. The fault lies with how private statuses are implemented, and nothing about that needs to be kept secret as would a normal vulnerability, during responsible disclosure. In fact, it is extremely harmful to let users believe that these privacy settings are anything other than vague recommendations, specifically because of the risk they will act accordingly and expose some of their private posts to the world. They should know exactly what’s going on with it, and Dan accidentally failing to keep that a secret is in no way causing bad things.

It is to the person who discovers the vulnerability. That’s fairly normal… how would giving it to someone else motivate the result they’re trying to get?

Okay. What part of the spec did Pixelfed violate? Where in the spec is Mastodon’s implementation of private posts justified?

It has everything to do with ActivityPub since if you follow that protocol strictly you will cause this behavior.

Absolutely not. Which part of the spec? I linked up there to quite a thorough explanation of what the spec does and doesn’t dictate in this area, and how Mastodon chooses to behave in its implementation. What part of my explanation did I get wrong? Are they violating 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, some other part? How?

/cybersec researcher

I do not believe you. “I’m sending things out which need to be handled carefully in a protocol-nonstandard way by the recipient server software (which could be literally anything), or else my user’s private posts will be exposed. If someone talks about that situation and lets people know what’s going on, that’s irresponsible disclosure.”

If you actually are a cybersec researcher, you are bad at your job.

1. This is nothing to do with ActivityPub. It’s to do with Mastodon’s custom implementation of “private” posts.
2. Making it extremely clear to everyone that random server software can expose Mastodon’s “private” posts is absolutely the right way to handle disclosure here. Dan didn’t even try to do that, he just fixed the bug, but if he had made a big post saying “hey this is not my fault Mastodon private posts are not private, here’s full explanation about what’s going on” I think that would have been completely fine. This is not a “vulnerability” in the traditional sense like a buffer overflow, it’s just a design flaw in Mastodon which other softwares are by convention agreeing to cater to. I think the culture of security (and the level of clue in general) in the Fediverse has wandered into territory where “let’s all pretend that these posts are secure and get mad at anyone who reveals that they are not” is widely accepted now, but that doesn’t make it right.

Yeah, there’s also this:

A more recent issue came about when Pixelfed’s creator, Daniel Supernault made the details of a vulnerability public before server operators had a chance to update, which would have left the fediverse vulnerable to bad actors, she says. (Supernault has already apologized publicly for his handling of the issue that had affected private accounts.)

In the case of the Pixelfed issue, for instance, the Hachyderm Mastodon server, which has over 9,500 members, decided it needed to defederate (or disconnect from) other Pixelfed servers that hadn’t been updated in order to protect their users.

It is weird to spend almost half the words in this, pretending that something in Pixelfed that wasn’t a problem on Pixelfed’s side was. This is the weirdest “vulnerability” in the world to pick if you want to pick one to hold up extensively as an example.

Also Lemmy: Here’s a bunch of death threats and pictures of a pig taking a shit because you said democracy was a good idea

I actually am not sure that it’s as big a deal as that.

For decades and decades now, China’s leaders have gotten mileage as do a ton of various leaders around the world by rattling their sabers at the US. It’s just a popular thing to do, and it’s easy and usually pretty consequence-free. It’s like talking about abortion or immigrants for US Republicans. I think if they wanted to start a war with Taiwan, they would have been starting some kind of war about something in the area of the South China Sea, as opposed to just shooting water cannons and making stern statements. Maybe start with something lower-stakes but really commit to it. They have not been doing that.

For as much as US and Chinese leaders talk shit about one another, and their intelligence services like to spy / undermine each other, they both benefit so enormously from the mutual relationship and there’s so much at stake in terms of fucking it up if things really come to blows that I feel like it’s not a priority. Maybe I am wrong and China will see their chance to snatch Taiwan while it’s Trump, since Trump definitely will not do shit if they do. But I just feel like the upsides are a little limited and the potential downsides are massive.

a bench warrant was issued for Sullivan.

There you go. Go after the little people. Put them in prison. They’re committing crimes, kidnapping and battery among others. Tackle them and put cuffs on them. Let their defense team explain how they were acting under legal authority, what statutes were involved, where their warrant was.

I understand that things have gone insane on the federal level, but they’re still committing crimes in municipal places.

In a perfect world, we could impeach Trump for causing these things to happen, but it’s still absolutely possible to interfere with the actual people who are committing crimes in order to implement the stuff.

Ah yes, those are some perfectly standard talking points.

I think I will do up a FAQ for the disinformation community or something, it is getting tiring repeatedly typing the same responses. But I do appreciate the extra effort to at least put together something which has some semblance of plausibility instead of just seeing “Gaza” and reaching for the “Kamala Harris” button without bothering to make it make sense or relate in literally any way at all. Big improvement. Good stuff.

The propaganda is getting lazy, this doesn’t even make sense.

Idk, maybe it is just feels-based. If we keep repeating over and over in various ways how bad and anti-Palestinian Kamala Harris was while she was in charge of the country and setting our Gaza policy, people will absorb it by pure groupthink, and won’t notice that the number of people deported or disappeared for being Gaza protestors has gone up infinity percent since the other person won the election and in fact this exact type of issue was a big part of why it was super important for him not to win.

Yeah. That’s one thing I think Piefed is really doing right. They’re trying to make it so that normal people will have a fairly pleasant normal-person experience.

I think Lemmy’s core developers including explicit acceptance for toxic online behavior, and some of the original core instances openly celebrating and modeling it, really may ruin the platform for the long term. And yes, you and dubvee are completely right as far as the lack of action in any respect by a lot of people who run the instances to do all that much of substance about the people who seem to want to ruin the experience on those instances.

Why would Adam Back work against the goal of creating a digital currency? Presumably, he had some sort of reason why he thought it would be better to do it the one way instead of the other way. Maybe in hindsight his logic was just wrong.

I have no idea of the technical details involved, maybe what you’re saying does make sense. But your argument makes equal sense, to me, when applied to say that Adam Back couldn’t possibly have taken that stance, as it does applied to say that Satoshi couldn’t have taken that stance. I’m not convinced. I have no idea if the thing is true or not, but it seems pretty plausible to me, and the “debunking” does not at all.

That’s the weakest sauce “debunking” I’ve ever seen.

It’s been a while, but as I remember the arguments they give are:

• Back basically disappeared activity-wise from the relevant mailing list at the same time that Satoshi appeared, and everyone immediately trusted Satoshi and treated him as someone of value
• Similarities in writing style
• Back has given some odd answers in interviews when asked about Satoshi, that basically only make sense if he at least knows who it is

Is that ironclad? Certainly not. It is however a lot more convincing than “why would someone with a lot of money care whether the value of their money went UP or DOWN if they already had a lot? Checkmate”.

How did they debunk the claim that it might be Adam Back? Have a link?