> We did not want to contact FlyCASS first
> as it appeared to be operated only by one person
> and we did not want to alarm them
I’m not buying this. Feels more like they knew the site developer would just fix it immediately and they wanted to make a bigger splash with their findings.
This is exactly the kinda bug where you want to make a big splash though. You don't just want the guy to silently fix it, everyone in the database needs to be vetted again.
Whatever their motive was, the engineering process that allowed such a common bug to sneak in is broken. If the sole developer immediately fixed it, it would have been hard to escalate the issue so that maybe someone up the chain can fix this systematically. I'm not sure such overhaul would really happen but it's more likely that it won't if not escalated.
Yes, and what about the possibility that an attacker already accessed this database and added themself as an employee?
Would you rather to be prepared and do a full (well, for a govt agency, full enough) check on all people allowed to access flying death machines, or have a dev silently fix the issue with possible issues later?
ya because the person who developed this is totally trustworthy to fully fix it and assess any other possible vulnerabilities. he definitely isn't gonna just add a front
end validation to throw a message on the front end when you submit a single quote...
I’m not buying this. Feels more like they knew the site developer would just fix it immediately and they wanted to make a bigger splash with their findings.