• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    They did not do it by manipulating code. This wasn’t the result of a code vulnerability. If you leave the door wide open with all your stuff out for the entire neighbourhood to see, you can’t claim you were “broken into”. Similarly, if you don’t secure your endpoints, you can’t claim you were “hacked”.

    • sudneo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lack of rate limiting is a code vulnerability if we are talking about an API endpoint.

      Not that discussion makes any sense at all…

      Also, “not securing” doesn’t mean much. Security is not a boolean. They probably have some controls, but they still have a gap in the lack of rate limiting.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is a vulnerability, but exploiting that vulnerability is not generally considered by security experts to be “hacking” in the usual meaning of that term in academic settings. Using an open or exposed API, even one with a sign that says “don’t abuse me”, is generally not considered hacking.