Are you yelling me a password of 23AndMe! Is bad? It meets all the requirements.
Comment on 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached | TechCrunch
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 5 months ago
OP spreading disinformation.
Users used bad passwords. Their accounts where accessed using their legitimate, bad, passwords.
Users cry about the consequences of their bad passwords.
Yeah, 23AndMe has some culpability here, but the lions share is still in the users themselves
AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
How am I spreading disinformation? I just contributed an article I found interesting for discussion.
Falcon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s worth noting that OP simply used the article title.
The article title is a little biased, individuals must take greater personal responsibility.
Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I don’t know title etiquette in this forum. I used the author’s title because it is their article, not mine, and thus their opinion/research/AI output.
Falcon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oh no, I was just pointing it out for others. I think using the title post is perfectly reasonable.
Thank you for posting, I found it interesting.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Users used bad passwords. Their accounts where accessed using their legitimate, bad, passwords.
Just as an anecdotal counterpoint, I am a 23andMe customer who did receive notification of my account was accessed and personal information obtained.
This was my password at the time: 7Kk5bXjIdfB25
That password was auto-generated for me by the BitWarden app.
So for what it’s worth I don’t think my password was a ‘bad’ password.
Willy@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Your direct account was accessed or some of your information was access through a compromised account? those are big differences and from what I’ve read only the latter should have been possible. and in my opinion, not such a big deal.
Hegar@kbin.social 5 months ago
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.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
You didn’t read it either. They gained access to shared information between the accounts.
Logging into someones Facebook and seeing their friends and all the stuff they posted as “friends only” isn’t a hack or a vulnerability, it’s how the website works.
Hegar@kbin.social 5 months ago
Laughing a feature that lets an inevitable attack access 500 other people's info for every competitive 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.
sudneo@lemmy.world 5 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.
sudneo@lemmy.world 5 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.
rainerloeten@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The lions share IMHO is at 23&me. Offering such a poorly secured service is negligence, in the face of the data’s high sensitivity nature.
mp04610@lemm.ee 5 months ago
How exactly are these 6.9M users at fault? They opted in to a feature of the platform that had nothing to do with their passwords.
On top of that, the company should have enforced strong passwords and forced 2FA for all accounts. What they’re doing is victim blaming.
Falcon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
users knowingly opted into a feature that had a clear privacy risk.
Strong passwords often aren’t at issue, password re-use is. If un-{salted, hashed} passwords were compromised in a previous breach then it doesn’t matter how strong those passwords are.
Every user who was compromised:
A further subset of users failed to use a unique and strong password.
A 2FA token (think Matrix) might have helped here, other than that, individuals need to take a greater responsibility for personal privacy. This isn’t an essential service like water, banking, electricity etc. This is a place to upload your DNA profile…
sudneo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
As I said elsewhere, the company implemented this feature and apparently did not do absolutely jack about the increased risk of account compromise deriving from it. If I would sit in a meeting discussing this feature I would immediately say that accounts which share data with others are way too sensitive and at least these should have 2fa enforced. If you don’t want it, you don’t share data. Probably the company does not have a good security culture and this was not done.
Hegar@kbin.social 5 months ago
Your aunt who still insists she's part Cherokee is not as capable of understanding data security risks as the IT department of the multi-million dollar that offered the ludicrously stupid feature in the first place.