Comment by renewiltord
4 months ago
> $0 due to email spoofing being out of scope.
Strictly, $0 because he disclosed to customers. But he only disclosed to customers since Zendesk said it was out of scope.
4 months ago
> $0 due to email spoofing being out of scope.
Strictly, $0 because he disclosed to customers. But he only disclosed to customers since Zendesk said it was out of scope.
HackerOne declared the issue out of scope so I don't see why disclosure would make a difference here. Had this person not notified different companies, they still wouldn't get a dime from HackerOne.
Bad showings all around, for both HackerOne and Zendesk.
>HackerOne declared the issue out of scope so I don't see why disclosure would make a difference here.
Indeed, but just you wait for Zendesk to say "well, _we_ didn't mark it out of scope!" as if delegating it to h1 renegades all responsibility.
They did, though. The post also quotes a response from Zendesk declaring it out of scope.
(There's a not-very-convincing argument that they declared the ability to view support tickets as out of scope, but were not given a chance to assess the Slack takeover exploit's scope.)
The Slack takeover exploit is a problem on Slack's end (and sounds more like a configuration issue than a bug) so Zendesk would not be responsible for that anyway though.
2 replies →