https://twitter.com/grubhub/status/611320394256109568?lang=e...
37 karma · joined January 15, 2016
https://twitter.com/grubhub/status/611320394256109568?lang=e...
https://auth0.com/blog/critical-vulnerabilities-in-json-web-...
The assumption was that you controlled the domain if you could return the self-signed cert with subjectAlt=foo.bar.acme.invalid when the SNI request for foo.bar.acme.invalid is made to the server your are requesting a cert for. Unfortunately the assumption didn't hold up because hosting providers shared the same routing server across domains and subdomains and those routing servers did not have controls around the subjectAlt domains used for TLS-SNI-01.
> Also, what do host headers have to do with this? Presumably this is just a tls handshake test? They don't have anything to do with the weakness. It's mentioned to make the distinction that SNI is used for the cert retrieval to establish the connection and Host-header is used separately to route to the proper backend
There's also other smaller bugs like coinbase and parity wallet
Rather than scan for password being contained in the message, something more reasonable to try would be to check if the whole message is the password since you can just plug that into the normal password hasher and run just one slower hash op
basically would have just been a losing gamble to have withheld money instead instead of it being something forced upon them
people have, but who knows how long it'll last
Granted that businesses like Amazon are unprofitable, but Uber is not nearly going to be as stable