It is absolutely not OK to participate in this scheme on a users behalf without their affirmative consent. You simply cant know the context of people's situations.
Even the information that there likely ARE some hits from my IP is a huge signal leak, to me.
Iv been using HA for a very long time and it feels like a betrayal of trust to me.
The arrogance of developers who think that they have to understand every threat model before they can address a problem is responsible for so many exploited vulnerabilities.
Please if you develop software, acknowledge that you do not know what you do not know, and take every opportunity to reduce attack surface area and potential information leaks. This is what computer security experts do.
The flip side of this argument is that often times as a developer, you might be asked to implement a "security" change that is actually worse, but the people asking you think it's better. How many people still work with system that require regular password rotations, or arbitrary complexity measures even though that is no longer considered good practice by organizations like NIST?
For that matter, and speaking of NIST, their new guidelines apparently require checks against known breach databases when registering passwords. So if the goal is to "take every opportunity to reduce attack surface area and potential information leaks", if you're following the latest NIST recommendations it sounds like integrating with HIBP is actually the correct thing to do. Obviously they could also do things like offline checking with a downloaded DB (though are you potentially leaking information if HA requests an up to date offline DB?) or make the feature opt in. And I do think they should do both of those things, to be clear. But I don't think it's arrogant to want to understand the proposed threat model before making a change to your application's default security posture. Especially if you chose that posture with the intention of making the system more secure in the first place, and it does reasonably do so.
I drove an i3 (Tiny sporty electric BMW) for a while, and it really changed how I see this kind of thing. The noise your car makes .. is wasted energy. You are blaring and bragging about your inefficiencies. That tiny i3 will out-accelerate you at every light, and you will be making a ton of noise, while it is nearly silent.
Car people seem to have got 'louder' and 'stronger' correlated in their heads, but they are NOT.
I have an i3 and a 2020 M2 Competition with a 6 speed manual. I assure you the i3 is not faster, and attempting to describe either one as a "better car" is ridiculous because the overlap in their goals and design ethos is two completely separate circles on a Venn diagram, with a little overlap that says "has four wheels". Both excellent cars, neither a substitute for the other whatsoever.
I work with claude every day, and instantly recognized its voice; but at the same time, as a web dev from the late 90s who traveled kicking and screaming through all of these ages, I really enjoyed the article anyway. I don't have a visceral disgust with claude's tone as some others here seem to. I'm glad you wrote it and I plan to share it with a friend.
reply