Comment

Comment on Pixelfed leaks private posts from other Fediverse instances

LWD@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Search that specification for “private.” You’ll find precisely one reference to it…

It might be better to look for what the article mentions: “manuallyApprovesFollowers”, and it is explicit about what to do when that value is set to true. I don’t understand how you’re confused by it.

Mastodon, in general, is regarded as careless with safety.

Regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I found the description of how to properly handle a security issue as discussed in the article to be appropriate. For example, collaborating with administrators of large instances.

The “security issue” is created on Mastodon’s side

Are we reading the same article? I realize this isn’t the first time you implied this, but I thought I must have been mistaken.

From the original post: “Importantly, your Mastodon or GoToSocial instance isn’t handing your private posts to any random server, just because it asks.”

Mastodon is behaving. Pixelfed was not. Pixelfed fixed the security issue because it was their issue…

source

Sort:hotnew top

PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

The “security issue” is created on Mastodon’s side

Are we reading the same article? I realize this isn’t the first time you implied this, but I thought I must have been mistaken.

Let me excerpt from this since you seem to have missed it:

Something you may not know about Mastodon’s privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn’t display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don’t implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).

Servers don’t necessarily disregard Mastodon’s privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon’s privacy settings aren’t a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don’t run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren’t configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn’t expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user’s reblogs.

Keeping secret that private posts work this way in Mastodon is very bad security. Going past that, to say that someone else is committing a security sin if they make it clear to people that private posts work this way in Mastodon (while fixing their own software’s handling of Mastodon’s “private” posts in a quick and complaint-free fashion) is even worse security, which I would say travels into the land of ludicrous counterproductive performative freakout.

Let me paint for you a picture of what might happen if you mislead Mastodon users into thinking that their “private” posts are private:

I created an account on pixelfed.social and clicked follow on my partner’s Mastodon account, and… I could see all of her private posts. Instead of telling me I’d have to wait to have my follow accepted, I was already following her.

“Oh no, not again”, I said, dreading the thought of spending the next few hours reading PHP code and writing a report.

Sort of implies it’s happened before. I would not be surprised, of course. Want me to quote the important part ot understand again?

Something you may not know about Mastodon’s privacy settings is that they are recommendations, not demands. This means that it is up to each individual server whether or not it chooses to enforce them. For example, you may mark your post with unlisted, which indicates that servers shouldn’t display the post on their global timelines, but servers which don’t implement the unlisted privacy setting still can (and do).

Servers don’t necessarily disregard Mastodon’s privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon’s privacy settings aren’t a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don’t run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren’t configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn’t expect on one of these servers—like in the public timeline, or a user’s reblogs.

That’s an important thing for you to read. I linked you to it, and then quoted it, but it didn’t seem to stick, so I’m sending it again.

I’ve said as much on this topic as I feel like saying.

source
- LWD@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  The trouble with the thing you quoted twice in a row - unnecessarily padding out your post - is that saying “Mastodon may not be perfect” does not cancel out Pixelfed’s massive security issue.
  
  Two wrongs don’t make a right.
  
  Non-malicious servers aren’t supposed to do what Pixelfed did.
  
  source
  - PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Hey, that’s a really good point. It turns out I was able to dig up an important thing to read that addresses it, though. Here, check this out:
    
    Servers don’t necessarily disregard Mastodon’s privacy settings for malicious reasons. Mastodon’s privacy settings aren’t a part of the original OStatus protocol, and servers which don’t run a recent version of the Mastodon software simply aren’t configured to recognize them. This means that unlisted, private, or even direct posts may end up in places you didn’t expect on one of these servers
    
    source
    LWD@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Don’t be a jackass and don’t spam.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments