Slashdot Log In
It's Not Just O2 Leaking MMS Messages
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jul 21, 2008 06:18 AM
from the feature-not-bug dept.
from the feature-not-bug dept.
wiedzmin writes "A recently publicized issue with UK's O2 leaking private MMS to the Internet by making them available and searchable in Google has gained a lot of momentum and forced the company to promptly fix the problem. However a quick internet search shows that other mobile server providers, including those located in US and Canada, also make all MMS messages available in a similar manner. In fact, operators like Sprint and Boost Mobile will even let you see the phone number from which the picture or video was sent, download it, print it, forward it or reply to it from the same web page. Other operators like Canada's Bell, Solo Mobile, Verizon, Rogers and Quest appear to have removed or otherwise protected all MMS messages recently as all the cached search listings that show up for these providers are no longer available. There is no telling how many other operators' MMS listings can be accessed given correct search terms, but it looks like they are starting to get the idea and remove them from the web."
Related Stories
[+]
Search: UK Mobile Operator O2 Leaks MMS Photos 154 comments
Anonymous Hero writes "UK Mobile Operator O2 allows its customers to send Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) photos to email recipients by way of a web interface. The URLs published by the MMS-to-email application are not authenticated, so a simple Google search reveals hundreds, if not thousands of private photos."
Reader ttul points out similar coverage of this issue at InformationWeek.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In the title (Score:5, Informative)
It should be O2 (Oh 2), not 02 (zero 2)...
robots.txt (Score:5, Funny)
Re:robots.txt (Score:5, Insightful)
Updating the robots.txt is not a security measure. The web servers should never reveal the MMS without authentication in the first place.
Parent
Re:robots.txt (Score:5, Funny)
Updating the robots.txt is not a security measure. The web servers should never reveal the MMS without authentication in the first place.
Hey, thanks for ruining the joke, jerk :-(
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Ups, sorry. ;-)
But someone just modded my comment as 'insightful'. Someone at O2?
Re:robots.txt (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing that MMS are sent using an insecure, public network, you should not be thinking of these things as 'private'. Just like the stupid myspace users who think their 'friends only' profiles are private.
Easy to intercept doesn't mean not private (or public). Are your phone conversations encrypted? Sure they are on the air interface, but not in the operator's core network or on the links between different operators. But I guess you consider the contents of your phone conversations private.
Parent
Stupid to expect privacy from a phone conversation (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess you consider the contents of your phone conversations private.
Why? That makes ZERO sense. Anyone with a scanner used to be able to pick up your cell phone conversation, and today since the signal is digital it's a little harder but the same basic premise still applies - NO phone conversation is encrypted unless you do so yourself. Apart even from freely transmitting your conversation to anyone in range who wants to listen, there's the stuff that happens with your voice signal downstream on th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy to intercept doesn't mean not private (or public).
Private, in this sense, means that it's illegal to intercept my communication (except for lawful interception). I could sue anyone who intercepts my phone calls and uses the obtained information in any way and I become aware of it. This applies to phone, SMS/MMS, email, web activity, whatever. (IANAL, but I guess it could also apply to my WLAN at home) Of course I am aware of the fact that these communication channels are insecure, so I use them accordingly. But if anyone has the means to intercep
And that is why you fail (Score:2)
Private, in this sense, means that it's illegal to intercept my communication (except for lawful interception).
That is, simply put, the most bullshit explanation of "expectation of privacy" I have ever heard. It is simply astounding to think that just because something is technically illegal to do, it will not be done and you can rely on it in any way to protect you - it's as foolhardy a measure as the record studios relying on DRM to stop media from being pirated, because it would be illegal to bypass!
The
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
O2 Were Leaking Mobile Numbers Too (Score:4, Informative)
This was the same with the O2 MMS leak over the weekend. Google's cache was showing the mobile number from which the MMS originated - highly controversial IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it controversial? Because they were leaking it or because its there?
If I have to look at a web page to view an MMS, I'd expect the phone number to be there. It would be if it was on my phone!
Personally I'd rather them use a robots.txt appropriately and keep the URLs randomized with an appropriate GUID but stop doing any authentication. The iPhone's lack of MMS, for example, would be dramatically less of a big deal if they would text me a damn URL to go straight to it rather than texting me a login pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
No, its because I know if someone wants to tell me something privately, they better say it to my face. Do you think there's any privacy in anything you do over a cell phone? The only privacy you have is because no one gives a shit about you and what you're doing, not because of anything inherent in the technology.
So if you want to term "being able to effectively use" as being "lazy", that's your prerogative, I suppose, but you may want to loosen the tinfoil.
Re:O2 Were Leaking Mobile Numbers Too (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, I'd very much like the applications I use to be effective and simple in use, but not at the cost of privacy or security. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in this view.
Anyhow, we digress. The fact is: robots.txt is a directive to specific clients - namely thsoe that are automated, a.k.a search engines or bots -- to not index the page. They are NOT a security measure. Far too many automated services ignore robots.txt and index anyway; hence the reason it shouldn't be used to protect personal information like you're suggesting. Furthermore, randomising URIs using GUIDs defeats your whole usability/ease-of-use argument.
Sorry, but you're just plane wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you believe someone should tell you something privately, doesn't mean they will. People were sending each other pictures of their newborns - in the belief, I'm sure, that it was private - and they were openly exposed by Google's cache because of the stupidity of the O2 developers.
In my experience of parents, they will show pictures of their newborns to anybody who doesn't run away fast enough. O2 could have publicised this as a customer feature -- it's the people who hack in to get the pictures who lose out here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone's lack of MMS... ...rather than texting me a login page with a "username" and "password" to login with that I can't cut and paste.
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
The iPhone can cut and paste now?
Re: (Score:2)
Oops! It started with me almost quoting and replying to the wrong post and ended with me not trimming the quote properly, which I then cut and pasted into a reply to the CORRECT post.
I guess you all know what I value most, now. :)
Re:O2 Were Leaking Mobile Numbers Too (Score:4, Interesting)
http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/guest/message/reply/compose.do?messageId=001_2359418f2c1d5b75_1&invite=qEArJQ7X55kZn5vz8U50&COMPOSER_OPTION=REPLY [sprintpcs.com]
look at this.
Apparently you can reply as someone else.
Parent
Nice pictures (Score:4, Funny)
Most users i looked at seem to send around pictures of houses and cars they are planning to buy. Or maybe the want to sell them. In any case, looks like the US economy is not THAT bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but they're actually pictures of houses they're planning to rob, and cars they're planning to steal.
Just did a search and some of them seem to be returning errors now - nothing like getting your problems published on slashdot to motivate people to fix them!
So are these services purely to allow people with MMS-incapable phones to see messages (I remember getting an SMS with a URL to view the message once upon a time with Telstra), or for sharing them?
If it's the former then requiring authentication mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's the former then requiring authentication might be possible, but that'd be a real pain for the latter. Having random, unguessable paths as unique keys is about all you can do without crippling the ability to share them.
I'd rather recive pictures via email than use link to someone else's server.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the foreclosures are just happening THAT fast.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not, the article cited the recent O2 leak (which WAS in the UK), but it's about a bunch of operators leaking MMS messages, including some in the US and Canada.
You could have at least bothered to read the summary.
that's why (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What about getting service from a non idiotic company who knows how web works? That is another solution :)
Just using e-mail would be great if everyone had e-mail account, they have configured their phone and they get service from a company doesn't rob them for every single KB of data coming to device.
Yesterday I sent MMS to a plumber I know to give a clue about the "disaster" so he could get right tools. Now, that guy will have a perfectly setup IMAP mail account, I will know that mail, I will leak my mail
Re: (Score:2)
What about getting service from a non idiotic company who knows how web works? That is another solution :)
Ideally, that would be a solution. In reality...
Which is more likley (Score:2)
Just using e-mail would be great if everyone had e-mail account,
The last few plumbers I used all did.
Yesterday I sent MMS to a plumber
And how many plumbers have MMS phones? Why is THAT expectation more rational than email?
Funny thing is, the web based mms stupid idea was just about to disappear... It was designed for times that everyone didn't have MMS enabled phones... Now iPhone shipped without MMS!
And you expect that to not hasten the demise of SMS how again?
Where do these engineers come from? (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither of these are old enough for the "it was before we knew" excuse, so wtf is going through these guys heads?
Profit! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Take naked picture of self
2) Send to SO
3) Find on internet
4) Sue
6) PROFIT!
Re: (Score:2)
For all you know, the parent is a sexy bitch with big titties. ...it could happen!
On Slashdot.
Re:Profit! (Score:5, Funny)
For all you know, the parent is a sexy bitch with big titties.
In this case, one out of two IS bad.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A SEXY manbitch.
WTF?? (Score:4, Funny)
5 pages of URLs and not a single nude picture! How is that possible??
iPhone users rejoice! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secret URL as a security feature (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do search engines find the pages? Not likely via links, or if they do, what's wrong with that? I believe the most plausible explanation is that the viewers of such pages are using Google Toolbar or a similar tool, which I believe can report (reports all the time?) viewed pages to Google, so it can index then, even if they don't have any inbound links.
The lack of robots.txt is an oversight, though.
But why should a secret URL not be a decent security feature? Especially if they don't have outbound links that could put them into another server's log in the form of the Referer-field of the header. Why is it an advantage that part of the URL is moved to web page credentials? The pages themselves can still be in plain text (or are they SSL-protected?) and any system between the client and the server can see the credentials no matter where they are put. There is the slight difference that a server more commonly logs only the URL, not the password, but that's just another configuration issue and not in my opinion any real security; an attacker could modify the web server produce any kinds of logs he wanted.
I did try, with one such URL, to find its inbound link with Google's linkto-search, but found nothing. This does suggest a tool such as Google Toolbar or manual page entry was used to get the pages in. The low number of images found this way suggests this too.
If the providers had a page that linked to all the MMS images that way, now that would have been a grave mistake. But relying on secret URLs on a plain text medium in any case, is not. The search engines have no magic fairy dust in them to help them find such pages - and they sure aren't brute forcing the web..
Re:Secret URL as a security feature (Score:4, Insightful)
But why should a secret URL not be a decent security feature?
You seem to be a proponent of security through obscurity; please hand over your /. gun and turn in you nerd badge.
Seriously though, when I take a picture on my mobile phone and upload it to my provider's site, I feel like it's understood that someone would need a password to see my media. Hiding a password in a URL isn't an option because of the reason you so clearly outlined with services like Google Toolbar.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is username/password if not security via obscurity then? You can brute force them just as easily you can brute force an URL.
How can it be the service provider's fault that the viewer of the media openly sends information on the pages to the world?
And this MMS-hole is as old as MMS is; when MMS-messages weren't supported by all the phones (I suppose that can be the case today too), an SMS with the URL was sent instead. No username/password was associated with the service provider, you had your phone num
Re: (Score:2)
What is username/password if not security via obscurity then? You can brute force them just as easily you can brute force an URL.
Fair enough, the more I think about it the more I understand your point.
Re:Secret URL as a security feature (Score:4, Informative)
Theoretically speaking, a secret string in a password and a secret string in a URL should be equivalent, since they both require "something you know". The difference is that URLs are not generally treated as secrets, so your browser handles them differently. Your browser automatically records all URLs, but generally ASKS before remembering passwords. Also, your users may not realize URLs with secrets in them should be treated differently; they may pass the URLs around to their friends without realizing they're supposed to be "secret". Finally, it's usually easier to assign individual passwords to users (and thus revoke them when leaked) than to assign individual URLs to users.
So it depends on your use. It's not always a bad thing, and in environments requiring only minimal security it can be "good enough" in exchange for high convenience. Just don't consider it the same as an actual password.
Parent
boobies (Score:4, Funny)
I've got some +1 informatives to hand out here... somebody go find me some pictures of naked ladies!
Sprint (Score:2)
I don't have MMS on my Sprint plan, but people sometimes send me them. When that happens, I just get a link I put in my browser.
I was always a little disheartened that I didn't have to authenticate myself
MMS is inherently unprotected and open to view (Score:2)
People - MMS messages are simply open, and that's all there is to it. You cannot expect people to authenticate to view them, as the best you could hope for is some wonky one-time password sent along with the message there was an MMS they could look at, and which users would not stand for. You have to let them be viewed on the web because a number of phones (not just the iPhone) do not support MMS or even images. Since all you have is a number you are sending it to you don't necessarily have a good email
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile I can always send users a picture by email with confidence that picture is not anywhere on the web.
That's [computerworld.com] pretty [cnn.com] funny [betanews.com].
Compromised data is not the same as open publishin (Score:2)
Oh you joker!
Compromised systems where you store data is a totally different issue than designing a system where anything you transmit is put up for the world to see. One is a bug, one is by design...
Generally my statement holds true - at any given moment I may send an email with confidence there is not a link the general public may use to view it easily, which will never ever be the case with MMS - because that's just how it works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am confident the message I send is intended not to be seen by anyone but who I intended to see it.
I am confident the MMS message I might send is meant to be seen by others.
And that is all the difference. You are nitpicking fine details of the possible security weaknesses, while totally missing the big picture.