Right, I did some reading and here’s what likely happened with Parler. Lots of crossed wires here.

First up: someone noticed that Parler uses sequential integers in the API endpoint to get content.

An API endpoint is just a URL with a value added onto the end that tells the system what you want to get back.
Using sequential integers means that a hacker can set up an automated script to start at 1 and count up, trying API calls over and over again, to get back content from Parler.
Parler apparently had no restrictions on this API endpoint, which frankly blows my mind as a web dev.

If you had a working URL, it just spat out whatever it had whether you were logged in or not.
It seems that EVERYTHING that had been uploaded - video, photos, text posts - was accessible whether it had been deleted or restricted in the app itself. Even uploaded photos of licenses etc etc.

I cannot describe how amateur hour this is, if true.
Now as well as that - Parler got kicked off Twilio so now there was no verification of phone numbers on signup. They let it fail open - allow registrations without verification. Hackers used this to create umpteen accounts, for shits n giggles apparently.
I think they closed registrations after the damage had been done.

Okay so the admin accounts - they discovered an API endpoint that let them enumerate admin users.

This is also so unbelievably bad that it boggles the mind, from a web dev perspective
Like I don’t even know why that exists. That is not something that should exist.

The admin accounts were not compromised, apparently, but holy fucking shit you DO NOT expose admin account data EVER. That is asking to get hacked even more.
Anyway the TL;DR on this is that your password probably hasn’t been compromised (I hope) but anything else uploaded to Parler might be out in the wild now even if you deleted it in the app.

Happy fucking Monday, let the train wreck of this week begin
Further update: some lively discussion of it going on here: https://t.co/swpV9JUJ5p

More from Internet

Or, you could let us know when you figure out why it was trending yesterday and the users are complaining which is why Vice wrote about it. Why I'm saying what I am.

There's an assumption here that this problem is fixed bc it was already hacked.

It's not.


We have ppl freezing and dying in TX right now because some ppl who thought they were really smart never spoke to anyone with actual experience with energy systems in extreme cold climates.

Texans are waiting for a solution to a preventable problem.

Farmers are saying that now, not during a crisis, they have to wait for a JD tech to arrive to help them.

The assumption that bc SOME farmers said screw this and used hacked firmware to get around that obstacle doesn't mean that all farmers are doing that.

If all farmers were using hacked firmware we wouldn't be discussing this right now would we?

Of course no one has pointed out that another issue here is that no one at John Deere has figured out they don't have enough staff to quickly and reliably SOLVE problems.

The locked firmware is just one of many issues here.

By not giving people a fast solution they're causing this and other issues.

So what I'm saying is somebody at John Deere needs to examine all of this.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?