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.
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.
If you’re “helping a kid” then I guess I can help you. Help is criticism delivered with a constructive tone. Criticism can be helpful if you look past the tone.
I liked the graphs. When skimming posts i often stop on graphical elements and decide if I want to understand the context or continue skimming. In this context, all three graphs were useful for me.
Posts with just text are sense and just not nice to read. That's why even text-only blog posts have a tendency to include loosely-related image at the top, to catch reader's eye.
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.
"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".
? 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
I'm not following this at all. It seems like OP is saying if you share a secret in your (private?) gist and give Algolia permission to read the gist, they will invalidate it. But why would the secret be in a gist and not a repo? Also if you're aware enough to add that partner it seems you're aware to not do dumb things like that in the first place.
If you find an exposed token in the wild, for a service supported by GitHub Secret Scanning, uploading it to a Gist will either immediately revoke it or notify the owner.
Yes, and in the real world where Grice's Maxim of Relevance is in force, then when the secrets issuer that is the subject of the discussion isn't one of those partners, then an informative "reminder" that GitHub "has a secret scanning program" with a bunch of other partners is not actually informative. It's as superfluous and unhelpful as calling to let someone know you're not interested in the item they've posted for sale on Craiglist (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWG3jKzKcm8>).
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
So why hasn't the HomeAssistant docs page been nuked yet?
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.
If you’re “helping a kid” then I guess I can help you. Help is criticism delivered with a constructive tone. Criticism can be helpful if you look past the tone.
If you want to help, you should sound helpful.
I liked the graphs. When skimming posts i often stop on graphical elements and decide if I want to understand the context or continue skimming. In this context, all three graphs were useful for me.
Posts with just text are sense and just not nice to read. That's why even text-only blog posts have a tendency to include loosely-related image at the top, to catch reader's eye.
I have been developing an OpenClaw-like agent that automates exactly this type of attack.
Why? This is just regex search and there are plenty of tools that do this perfectly fine.
None of those proven tools would make a man feel like a wannabe Mr. Robot.
Interesting how many people already are playing with these API keys ? ;)
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
I'm not following this at all. It seems like OP is saying if you share a secret in your (private?) gist and give Algolia permission to read the gist, they will invalidate it. But why would the secret be in a gist and not a repo? Also if you're aware enough to add that partner it seems you're aware to not do dumb things like that in the first place.
If you find an exposed token in the wild, for a service supported by GitHub Secret Scanning, uploading it to a Gist will either immediately revoke it or notify the owner.
Ok I see, so any public gist with an algolia key in it will get invalidated? And it would have to follow some pattern like ALGOLIA_KEY=xxx ?
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.
Yes, and in the real world where Grice's Maxim of Relevance is in force, then when the secrets issuer that is the subject of the discussion isn't one of those partners, then an informative "reminder" that GitHub "has a secret scanning program" with a bunch of other partners is not actually informative. It's as superfluous and unhelpful as calling to let someone know you're not interested in the item they've posted for sale on Craiglist (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWG3jKzKcm8>).
It's more useful than telling someone that their statement is a tautology in formal logic.
How is reminding people that they can safely revoke exposed API keys not informative? Why are you being so combative?