I Found 39 Algolia Admin Keys Exposed Across Open Source Documentation Sites

5 hours ago (benzimmermann.dev)

the wildest part is algolia just not responding. you email them saying "hey 39 of your customers have admin keys in their frontend" and they ghost you? thats way worse than the keys themselves imo. like the whole point of docsearch is they manage the crawling FOR you, but then the "run your own crawler" docs basically hand you a footgun with zero guardrails. they could just... not issue admin-scoped keys through that flow

Man, talk about unnecessary graphs... ok graph 2 is maybe tolerable, although it's showing the popularity of the projects, not a metric of how many errors/vulnerabilities found in those projects.

I'm not a newspaper editor, but I think if this was an article for one, they'd also say the graphs are unnecessary. It smells of "I need some visual stuff to make this text interesting"...

  • It's Friday night / Saturday morning. Who wants to be reading text?

    Especially on night mode themes.

    Besides, can we read anymore? In the age of 'GPT summarise it me' attention spans and glib commentary not about the content of the article being all many people have to add, perhaps liberal application of visualisations adds digestive value.

  • Dude there’s only three graphs in there. Do they really bother you that much? The third may be a bit unnecessary but I think the visuals add to the post.

    • So you agree partially with what I said.

      The poster is 16, he can take it as feedback towards effective writing. Or the intellectual HN crowd can just downvote it and dissuade me from contributing and helping a kid (oh look at me, how fucking noble am I, right?).

      Ah, that feeling of "Am I the only one who gets it around here?". I wanted to explain to you why graph 2 is dumb, and graph 1 is very little information, but heck, I felt dissuaded.

      3 replies →

Great write up. Reminder that if you commit these to a Github Gist and the provider partners with GitHub for secrets scanning, they’ll rapidly be invalidated.

  • That's just a tautology.

    "If the secrets issuer partners with X-corp for secret scanning so that secrets get invalidated when you X them, then when you X them the secrets will be invalidated".

    The above is a true statement for all X.

    • ? Yes? Toomuchtodo is reminding the author (and other commenters), that github gists are one way to make sure secrets are secured / remediated before making a public post like this. Maybe not the most responsible whitehat action, but I can see it being useful in some cases where outreach is impractical / has failed.

      Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Algolia has implemented this

      4 replies →

    • English is not formal logic.

      In formal logic, that statement is true whether X is GitHub, or Lockheed-Martin, Safeway, or the local hardware store.

      In English, the statement serves to inform (or remind) you that GitHub has a secret scanning program that many providers actually do partner with.

      3 replies →