493
submitted 1 month ago by lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to c/security@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 153 points 1 month ago

As much as I hate them, this is likey because a customer misconfigured their bucket and not on Amazon.

[-] Tak@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 month ago

Just like when users get "hacked" a lot of the time it was just their own lack of security practices and not the service provider. Obviously there are exceptions and I hate defending tech giants but end users are often to blame.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

I have never configure s3 buckets for an enterprise personally, but I have used AWS for some personal projects. The control panel pretty clearly warns you if you try to open the bucket to the public. "This is unsafe. Everyone can see everything you idiot!"

They must be doing it through the CLI.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Documents marked "not for public release" aren't classified. They're what's called controlled unclassified information (CUI). It's anything from PII, law enforcement victim records to sensitive (but unclassified) technical manuals. There's dozens of categories if anyone cares to look at them: https://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-marking-list

They shouldn't be sitting out there, but it's also not a crime.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The first result I got was labeled "classified: top secret - not for public release" so ~~the label is more broadly applied than just CUI.~~ my assumption that the document was legit was wrong.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

Classified: top secret - not for public release

That's not at all a valid classification marking.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 61 points 1 month ago

I work in a HIPAA-covered industry and if our AWS and GCP buckets are insecure that's on us. Fuck Amazon, but a hammer isn't responsible for someone throwing it through a window and a cloud storage bucket isn't responsible for the owner putting secret shit in it and then enabling public access.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

Yeah I hate Amazon as much as the next person, but this is a people/process problem, not an Amazon problem. Amazon doesn't know or care what you put into an AWS bucket (within reason, data tracking, etc, blah blah blah). People taking classified documents and uploading it to an Internet-connected cloud service is procedurally wrong on so many levels.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What kills me about S3 is that the use cases for publicly accessing S3 contents over HTTP have got to be vanishingly small compared to every other use of the service. I appreciate there's legacy baggage here but I seriously wonder why Amazon hasn't retired public S3 and launched a distinct service or control for this that's harder to screw up.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Public access is disabled by default and it warns you when you enable it. How much more idiot proof does it need to be?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] echo@lemmings.world 60 points 1 month ago

Amazon is only doing what someone told it to do. This is improper handling of documents and not a problem with Amazon itself.

[-] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 50 points 1 month ago

Such examples of OpSec competence make it easy to dismiss the majority of government conspiracy theories IMHO.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I go back to the veteran comedian every time.

We can't even stop our privates from telling their stripper girlfriend about the mission they're going on the next day, and people think there's a giant conspiracy out there where nobody talks...

Then there's the Warrantless Wiretap program under the Bush Administration. Cheney kept the authorization memo in his personal lawyer's safe. Only 7 people knew it existed. Shit still leaked.

[-] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Only 7. That’s perfect. I forget who said “three may keep a secret if two are dead” but of all the mustache twirling pricks in that admin, Cheney should have known.

Edit: it’s Ben Franklin’s joke, apparently. I doubt he’d mind.

[-] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

They dropped this to make themselves look incompetent!

[-] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 7 points 1 month ago

4D chess by the deep state!

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

"No! This is not how the game is meant to be played."

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cloud_herder@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago

To be fair, it’s probably more about the IT contractors and consulting firms that didn’t implement security policies or configurations correctly on the S3 buckets for the governments they’re working for. The AWS products aren’t opening up things to the public internet without auth. Which I bet most of you knew.

Example: Accenture left a trove of highly sensitive data on public servers (2017)

[-] BoisZoi@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 month ago

I added more JPEG for OP:

[-] shininghero@kbin.social 24 points 1 month ago

Aaand that search query got me some files with the top secret flag. Fortunately, they seem to be internal memos on things that are already known to the public, so nothing too immediately dangerous.

My big question is, why in the ever-loving fuck are these files outside of SIPRNET?

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 month ago

Cloud cloud cloud, cloudy cloud, cloudy cloudy cloud cloud.

-Management

[-] finkrat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Cloudorporate is confused!

Cloudorporate hurt itself in its confusion!

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago

Contractors and third parties with security clearance. Did you really think any US government agency actually tightened things down properly after Snowden?

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Is it illegal to have these or just distribution is illegal? I'm worried about the implications of you downloading but it isn't like anyone will care.

As for how they got there, perhaps via scan-to-email from the Mar-a-Lago copy- and bathroom.

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

This shit has been happening for far far longer than cheeto. It's bipartisan military organization incompetence, and the exact issue that allowed the Snowden leaks to occur.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago

Okay, the question I have, is why any government from a developed country would ever use something like AWS or something that everyone can obtain access to rather than making their own private solutions to these problems?

[-] hackerwacker@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 month ago

It's easier to hire someone who knows aws than to train someone on your custom thing. I don't really agree, but that's mostly the reasoning.

[-] JDubbleu@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

Not to mention in house solutions are basically guaranteed to cost more than AWS to get something even close to as comparable. A basic service like Lambda is complex as fuck and has had billions of dollars poured into making it what it is today.

[-] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 month ago

Amazon has a government cloud offering https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/

[-] SavedKriss@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because that's privatization. Paying a private contractor has the benefit of reducing the immediate cost of services for the state, at the hidden expense of corners so cut that things become circular.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

and circular things roll back down hill so easily it's constantly amazing that anyone's dumb enough to try it this day and age... buuut then I guess there's always that child who's satisfied shoving all shapes through the square hole...

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Another question could be : which developed country is not yet using the popular AWS already and why ?

For example : https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/10/amazon-web-services-to-launch-aws-european-sovereign-cloud

Customers, AWS Partners, and regulators welcoming the new AWS European Sovereign Cloud include the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (BMI), German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, Finland Ministry of Finance, National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB) in the Czech Republic, National Cyber Security Directorate of Romania, SAP, Dedalus, Deutsche Telekom, O2 Telefónica in Germany, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, Raisin, Scalable Capital, de Volksbank, Telia Company, Accenture, AlmavivA, Deloitte, Eviden, Materna, and msg group

[-] psmgx@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Cloud presents several advantages,and GovCloud is a thing.

Like, Amazon has SCIF cloud offerings. These leaks were cuz some dumbass contractor exposed a repo to the internet

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 month ago

In Portuguese: https://www.serpro.gov.br/menu/noticias/noticias-2023/serpro-lanca-nuvem-de-governo

Brazillian government launched its own cloud service to support the government agencies, everything stored and administer in Brazilian territory, making it independent from private companies and international governments.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I expect the same reasons they're mostly all using Microsoft Office, Windows, and Active Directory. Because it's cheaper than doing it yourself.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AffineConnection@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

So many of the results I see are incredibly obvious fakes.

[-] Finalsolo963@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago

What's the over-under on this being a honeypot?

[-] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My bets are on ~~"cloud infrastructure is bad for highly secret information" rather than "public web honeypot with zero obfuscation"~~ Edit: likely fake. The sensationalist in me would love it if this was real because it would confirm my "cloud storage bad" biases, but alas, the document markings dont appear to be consistent with my understanding of official US Government confidentiality/secrecy markings

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If S3, it's not cloud storage's fault some dummies enable public access to buckets which is disabled by default.

[-] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Youre correct it's not the provider's fault, but it's much harder in my very biased opinion to accidentally expose a secure 100% internal intranet than it is to accidentally put a top secret document in a public data bucket.

But it's a moot argument in this case anyway. Fake documents means these are likely exposed just to troll folks like us.

[-] JonsJava@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In their defense:

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Second result for me was a document about Russian hackers and their demands that we enstate trump as president after he lost.

[-] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah i saw this before

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
493 points (95.6% liked)

Security

4774 readers
2 users here now

Confidentiality Integrity Availability

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS