Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]
Re: #amazonfail

Compare these two posts:



Even if this is true, it doesn't absolve Amazon. This is not an exploit of a bug, it's an exploit of a policy decision. This is not a software glitch -- the software is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It was designed to allow exactly this sort of thing, intentionally, because the people making the policy decisions asking for this feature (deranking) didn't think through how it could be exploited.

ETA: I find the policy decision of hiding things from me that Amazon thinks are inappropriate for me to see incredibly objectionable, if that wasn't clear. The fact that said policy decision is also easily exploitable is just icing on the cake.

ETA2: More on the specifics of this particular claim, and the likelyhood of it being a metatroll: http://bryant.livejournal.com/672165.html

That said, I still think it has signs of being some sort of exploit.

ETA3: What they said: http://tech.blog.extendance.com/2009/04/13/amazonfail-a-architechtural/


Having seen the back end of what happened, he is vastly over estimating his role in what happened.

Edited at 2009-04-13 04:16 pm (UTC)

Ahh bantown. I'm of two minds on this whole thing, as 1.) computer security needs to be tested on a regular basis but 2.) I fucking hate trolls.

Well, not all trolls. Trolling 4chan is quite enjoyable, but at 4chan that sort of thing is expected.

I dunno. Just.. fuck.

Trolling 4chan is like stealing from a bank robber.

I worked at Amazon for a while as a temp. Most Seattlites drift through Amazon at one point or another. Frankly they aren't the most ethical company in the world, although my experience is that some of their decisions which seem off are more of them not thinking. For them to do something real dumb (either have a software problem that someone messed with, or that someone at Amazon decided it was a good policy, whatever) and then backpedal in a sort of "that never actually happened and it's all fixed now, everything's okay here, are you okay?" way -- that's pretty in-character for the company.

Paka's right.

This bears all the signs of being an exploit caused by Amazon's sloppy-ass code. They'll go through multiple iterations of web page design to ensure it's compatible with *everything* - while spending zero time examining the underlying logic and the assumptions used therin.