Risk
2/12/2009
05:39 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

25 Things Facebook Couldn't Keep Secret In Court

Redacted portions of a PDF transcript from a court hearing to determine Facebook's settlement with ConnectU were revealed.

Facebook has become the latest company to be bitten by bad PDF redaction.

The company's confidential settlement of a lawsuit brought by ConnectU was revealed Wednesday when Associated Press writer Michael Liedtke reported that redacted portions of a PDF transcript of a court hearing, at which details of the settlement were discussed, could be easily revealed.

"Large portions of that hearing are redacted in a transcript of the June hearing, but The Associated Press was able to read the blacked-out portions by copying from an electronic version of the document and pasting the results into another document," Liedtke wrote in his article.

The improperly redacted document revealed that ConnectU received somewhere between from $31 million and $65 million to settle its lawsuit, and that Facebook's internal valuation was about $3.7 billion.

"At some point in the document's workflow, it appears that someone added a white rectangle over white text in order to cover it," said David Stromfeld, a senior product manager for Adobe Acrobat. "And that's what they thought was sufficient to make that content undiscoverable."

That's not the right way to redact content.

Such mistakes have bedeviled would-be censors for years, in PDF files and Microsoft Word files, too.

A document on proper redaction technique, published by the National Security Agency in December 2005, describes the problem thus: "Both the Microsoft Word document format (MS Word) and Adobe Portable Document (PDF) are complex, sophisticated computer data formats. They can contain many kinds of information such as text, graphics, tables, images, meta-data, and more all mixed together. The complexity makes them potential vehicles for exposing information unintentionally, especially when downgrading or sanitizing classified materials."

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-0192
Published: 2015-07-02
Unspecified vulnerability in IBM Java 8 before SR1, 7 R1 before SR2 FP11, 7 before SR9, 6 R1 before SR8 FP4, 6 before SR16 FP4, and 5.0 before SR16 FP10 allows remote attackers to gain privileges via unknown vectors related to the Java Virtual Machine.

CVE-2015-1914
Published: 2015-07-02
IBM Java 7 R1 before SR3, 7 before SR9, 6 R1 before SR8 FP4, 6 before SR16 FP4, and 5.0 before SR16 FP10 allows remote attackers to bypass "permission checks" and obtain sensitive information via vectors related to the Java Virtual Machine.

CVE-2015-1916
Published: 2015-07-02
Unspecified vulnerability in IBM Java 8 before SR1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unknown vectors related to SSL/TLS and the Secure Socket Extension provider.

CVE-2015-3157
Published: 2015-07-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.

CVE-2015-3202
Published: 2015-07-02
fusermount in FUSE before 2.9.3-15 does not properly clear the environment before invoking (1) mount or (2) umount as root, which allows local users to write to arbitrary files via a crafted LIBMOUNT_MTAB environment variable that is used by mount's debugging feature.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marc Spitler, co-author of the Verizon DBIR will share some of the lesser-known but most intriguing tidbits from the massive report