6 ms·

"technically he didn't do that. Your sql server followed instructions when they should have just treated them as a string." Yet, hopefully we can agree that sq

by km3r 3mo ago

"technically he didn't do that. Your sql server followed instructions when they should have just treated them as a string." Yet, hopefully we can agree that sql injections are illegal.

sumeno 3mo ago
If I put a project on github that says "don't use this with mysql" and you use it with mysql and it drops your tables is it sql injection? Seems very different to me.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 3mo ago
  Everything turns on intent. "This is not tested with mysql" is very different from "I'm going to go out of my way to fuck up your mysql."
- mapontosevenths 3mo ago
  It's certainly unauthorized access if you intentionally built it with the goal of harming other peoples systems, especially if you hid that action from them the way our self-righteous friend here did. You are authorized to do what the user agreed to, no more. Further the agreement must be reasonable. Exploiting the victims system to intentionally cause harm isn't reasonable. F-secure once included a clause to use their wifi that you "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." It was funny, but not legally enforceable and would have offered them no legal shelter if they'd gone out on a kidnapping spree that night.
- artisin 3mo ago
  As much as I would like to agree, this is a pretty clear CFAA violation. If the intent is to purposefully destroy/delete data, the 'how' really makes no difference. But IANAL.
majormajor 3mo ago
But in this case the author of the project didn't execute the injection code... it's more analagous in some ways to pulling in a project with an example file containing a bunch of useful SQL stuff and then an example of an injection at the bottom, and just (in this case the agent) copy/pasting the whole thing in without reviewing it. If we're slicing on technicalities, there's a lot of ways to decide. "PROSECUTE THEM!" seems like an extremely hostile one when the website and readme and release notes said "don't do this" already. The agent ignored those things? Is that the author's fault?
- infinite_spin 3mo ago
  This is like saying I can slip malware into a project and so long as the user is the one who executed the code I'm free and clear.. which we both know isn't true.
  - saimiam 3mo ago
    Say I loosen the bolts of your car tires which causes a crash, that’s malware. Say I lay a log on a road which you can clearly see and avoid but choose to drive over and crash your car, that’s prompt injection. One is way worse than the other.
    - infinite_spin 3mo ago
      both are intentional, both are wrong, we don't need to compare two wrong things and say one is better.. you also cannot predict whether intentionally leaving a hazard in a roadway will give someone a choice, that very thing happens all the time and it causes a significant number of deaths.
    - avadodin 3mo ago
      A log the victim ran over last week loosened the bolts. The prosecution wouldn't even blink if you pointed this out. Unless the perpetrator intended for that to be the effect. Have you heard about mens rea? It turns random logging into laying logs onto a road intending to harm someone with the foreknowledge that they will harm the target and as a consequence any other people traveling on that road. Terrorism charges and straight to gitmo.
      - saimiam 3mo ago
        fine. Place a log on your own property - equivalent of posting a prompt on your own blog - then leave the gate open (equivalent of posting on the internet) only to have someone drive over that log uninvited and blame you for it. Is writing a prompt in your blog any different from laying a hunting trap on your own property and catching someone's pet? Are you liable for the pet wandering on your property?

by km3r 3mo ago

"technically he didn't do that. Your sql server followed instructions when they should have just treated them as a string." Yet, hopefully we can agree that sql injections are illegal.

sumeno 3mo ago

If I put a project on github that says "don't use this with mysql" and you use it with mysql and it drops your tables is it sql injection? Seems very different to me.

asdfasgasdgasdg 3mo ago
Everything turns on intent. "This is not tested with mysql" is very different from "I'm going to go out of my way to fuck up your mysql."
mapontosevenths 3mo ago
It's certainly unauthorized access if you intentionally built it with the goal of harming other peoples systems, especially if you hid that action from them the way our self-righteous friend here did. You are authorized to do what the user agreed to, no more. Further the agreement must be reasonable. Exploiting the victims system to intentionally cause harm isn't reasonable. F-secure once included a clause to use their wifi that you "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." It was funny, but not legally enforceable and would have offered them no legal shelter if they'd gone out on a kidnapping spree that night.
artisin 3mo ago
As much as I would like to agree, this is a pretty clear CFAA violation. If the intent is to purposefully destroy/delete data, the 'how' really makes no difference. But IANAL.

majormajor 3mo ago

But in this case the author of the project didn't execute the injection code... it's more analagous in some ways to pulling in a project with an example file containing a bunch of useful SQL stuff and then an example of an injection at the bottom, and just (in this case the agent) copy/pasting the whole thing in without reviewing it. If we're slicing on technicalities, there's a lot of ways to decide. "PROSECUTE THEM!" seems like an extremely hostile one when the website and readme and release notes said "don't do this" already. The agent ignored those things? Is that the author's fault?

infinite_spin 3mo ago
This is like saying I can slip malware into a project and so long as the user is the one who executed the code I'm free and clear.. which we both know isn't true.
- saimiam 3mo ago
  Say I loosen the bolts of your car tires which causes a crash, that’s malware. Say I lay a log on a road which you can clearly see and avoid but choose to drive over and crash your car, that’s prompt injection. One is way worse than the other.
  - infinite_spin 3mo ago
    both are intentional, both are wrong, we don't need to compare two wrong things and say one is better.. you also cannot predict whether intentionally leaving a hazard in a roadway will give someone a choice, that very thing happens all the time and it causes a significant number of deaths.
  - avadodin 3mo ago
    A log the victim ran over last week loosened the bolts. The prosecution wouldn't even blink if you pointed this out. Unless the perpetrator intended for that to be the effect. Have you heard about mens rea? It turns random logging into laying logs onto a road intending to harm someone with the foreknowledge that they will harm the target and as a consequence any other people traveling on that road. Terrorism charges and straight to gitmo.
    - saimiam 3mo ago
      fine. Place a log on your own property - equivalent of posting a prompt on your own blog - then leave the gate open (equivalent of posting on the internet) only to have someone drive over that log uninvited and blame you for it. Is writing a prompt in your blog any different from laying a hunting trap on your own property and catching someone's pet? Are you liable for the pet wandering on your property?