691 分 | 作者 speckx 1天前
39 条评论
- Cyan488 1天前> "The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended; however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email address provided by the individual requesting a password reset matched the email address associated with that user’s Instagram account," said Meta in its breach notice.
I'm not sure "worked properly" and "as intended" accurately describe this situation.
- johnyzee 1天前"Meta notified at least 20,225 people that their accounts had been compromised. [...]
The compromises allowed the hackers to take over the person's entire Instagram and any linked accounts, including obtaining contact information, dates of birth, and profile information, as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages, and account activity [...]
the hacks began around April 17 and lasted until this week [...]"
This is staggering.
- Lionga 1天前One can only hope EU gives them a GDPR fine very close to the limit of 4% of global turnover. But when EU is actually need to protect customer I think they will fail.
- mvkel 1天前Incidents like this show how unenforceable GDPR is, and how it's been a net negative for users since its inception. It's idealogical back-patting, toothless when it matters.
- dbbk 4小时前How is this unenforceable? If any EU citizens were hacked they're gonna come down like a ton of bricks on Meta Dublin.
- Gigachad 1天前After the GDPR every website added an option to export your personal data and to delete your account. Something most were missing at the time. It was an immediate and massive win.
- hn773746483 1天前Right, but nothing stops companies from refusing SARs on baloney grounds. Complain to a DPA? They tell you to go through ADR or outright ignore you. Complain to Ombudsman? They'll tell you the same. (In my experience, the Dutch do this)
Company ignores ADR? Sure, now you can go through the legal route and spend copious amounts of money all because a multi billion dollar company knows the game and how to navigate the bureaucratic mess better than you.
- zelphirkalt 18小时前Yep, this is how they do it. The domain registrar netcup did something like this to me.I went through their parent company (?) too, without success. They will put forth any reason to not have to delete your data. I suspect, that they either are trying to reduce work for themselves, or their platform is so crap internally, that they would have to get someone coding to delete the data.
- mvkel 21小时前This. In reality, GDPR isn't preventative, nor punitive enough for any meaningful user protection. We get cookie banners everywhere and user data harvesting companies happily pay the negligible fines
- mvkel 21小时前You don't have to have a fb account for meta to fingerprint every little page you visit, perfectly legally.
- smrtinsert 1天前This could avoid flagging by Meta explicitly allow bot traffic to do stuff with impunity on its services. Don't tell me an army of people went through and compromised acct by acct.
- sieabahlpark 1天前[dead]
- simpaticoder 1天前No fan of Meta, but I think "staggering" is properly determined by the percent of users affected rather than the absolute number. It's staggering to an SMB with 100k customers; it's bad, but not "staggering" to an internet juggernaught with 3B MAU.
- Gigachad 1天前Twenty _thousand_ people had their personal data stolen, many of them relied on these accounts to run their business, many put at risk of hackers impersonating them.
Meta in a fair world should be forced to financially compensate these people. They built a world where many people basically have to use their products for their jobs and then failed to look after the data because they wanted to replace customer support with a vibe coded AI tool.
- simpaticoder 1天前Over forty _thousand_ people die every year in the US from car accidents. Plenty of other preventable injustices happen in all areas of life. I wonder how many fathers are unjustly taken away from their children by a corrupt family court system, how many people die of treatable diseases denied treatment by insurance companies, how many kids lose interest in school because of bad teachers, how many customer service workers endure daily abuse because they need the job.
It's not that the breach isn't bad, or that Meta is a sympathetic company. It's bad and they're not. I just find it hard to feel outraged about this particular incident affected 1 out of every 10k users of a social media site when we live in a world with citizen's united, qualified immunity, and $300 insulin.
- Gigachad 1天前The US car deaths stat is also completely insane and way higher than other countries. I can recognize that at scale, securing every account is a very difficult task, but with scale comes responsibility.
Meta plays fast and loose rushing in unsupervised vibeslop agents to save a penny. They should be significantly penalized for such a massive failure, particularly for how long this exploit was live and for how the victims were unable to get in contact with any human at Meta to restore their account.
- iknowstuff 1天前1.2M car-related deaths worldwide every year. WW1 worth every decade.
- mikrotikker 1天前[flagged]
- reaperducer 23小时前way higher than other countries
You must live in Monaco.
Wikipedia has the United States #80.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
- frm88 18小时前Wikipedia has the United States #80.
Where do you see that? With 14.2/100K the US comes in at 111/190
- watwut 15小时前Order by deaths per inhabitant and it is 80.
- n0on3 20小时前Sure, but #80 out of 190, still not great ain’t it?
- kgwgk 18小时前Not great, not exactly what “completely insane and way higher than other countries” evokes either.
- reassess_blind 19小时前It's about average.
- me-vs-cat 13小时前> Over forty thousand people die every year in the US from car accidents.
If a single company was solely responsible for car accidents causing that many deaths in as short a time as this, the consequences would be severe.
- watwut 17小时前Fathers who ask for custody are massively successfull statistically.
Also, taking kids from father requires quite a lot. And no, actually proven domestic violence issue is not enough if it was not provably against the kid itself.
Familly courts have flaws, but fathers with interest in kids having them stolwn en mass is not one of them.
- eddyfromtheblok 20小时前ok, but we, as engineers, can do better. rather than leaning on lawyers as a crutch to eschew liability.
- onion2k 13小时前Twenty _thousand_ people had their personal data stolen, many of them relied on these accounts to run their business, many put at risk of hackers impersonating them.
It only worked for accounts that didn't have 2FA switched on. If your livelihood depends on your account and you're risking not turning on some pretty basic security features then you should accept partial responsibility.
- hilariously 12小时前Did they partially hack their accounts? No, why would you be saying its partially the victim's fault when the billion dollar corporation doesn't secure their shit?
- latexr 15小时前> Meta in a fair world should be forced to financially compensate these people.
In a fair world, Meta and companies like it wouldn’t exist.
- tjpnz 16小时前If you're relying on Meta to operate your business you're on shaky ground and it's a strong hint it was never viable to begin with.
- mikrotikker 1天前Not to mention all the thots who could now face real life stalking due to disclosure of their actual info.
- iamkrazy 22小时前[dead]
- ShinyLeftPad 19小时前It's not staggering. I fully expect thousands of people to lose their IG accounts per day to other hacks before this bug. That's like 0.000001 percent of active users. It's a big platform with many people.
But totally Meta should pay. There's not many people to pay. They should sue.
- ShinyLeftPad 13小时前Here are some sources that show the amount of hacked accounts, daily, before this bug is thousands or even tens of thousands. Apparently 30%+ of all social media account takeovers happen on instagram and it's not even the largest platform.
I didn't verify the sources, just searched how many.
https://www.hackingloops.com/social-media-hacking-statistics...
https://www.zerofox.com/blog/often-social-media-accounts-hac...
Downvotes are welcome to share their sources
- madeofpalk 1天前No. Percentages allow them to hide in the law of averages. Go tell those twenty thousand people that it's banal that Meta fucked up like this.
- sandcat_ 19小时前Worth noting that Meta has a track record of revising breach numbers upwards. We may find out it’s a lot higher than this in the coming weeks.
- gaiagraphia 14小时前Why does scale absolve you of crime?
If you or me hacked 20,000 people and potentially fucked over their lives, what'd be the consequences?
Who's going to attach their name to this negligent act and do time?
- webbdev 1天前Meanwhile an account I created for a new product was permanently disabled by an automated system with no path for me to appeal to a human.
(If anyone at Meta/Instagram sees this I wrote a brief blog post with the details. Please help! https://addisonwebb.com/blog/2026-06-05-Can%20Someone%20at%2... )
- Aurornis 1天前> Meanwhile an account I created for a new product
Meta requires the main account to be created for a person, not a product, business, or non-human entity. That's why you got hit with the "Please confirm you are a human" confirmation and then the account was locked for violating community standards, which require primary accounts to be people.
The community standards page in the links they sent you are pretty dense and it's easy to think you're not violating anything if you're not posting adult content and the other obvious categories. This is the section you violated:
> Create an account that represents a non-human entity, such as a business, pet, or fictional character
You have to follow the steps to set up a business page from your personal account. Sorry you didn't know this before going through the process, but it's important to read the proper channels for setting up business pages on all of the social media platforms these days. They're all dealing with an onslaught of spam and scam pages and they're under a lot of pressure to keep them out.
- quadrifoliate 23小时前> Sorry you didn't know this before going through the process, but it's important to read the proper channels for setting up business pages on all of the social media platforms these days.
This is exactly why Meta and other large companies need to be regulated with anti-trust regulations really soon. This whole "whoops sorry you didn't know, but it's a private company" thing only works if there are 5-6 other competitors you can go to that will take your business.
Meta is a de facto monopoly for a lot of small businesses; and should either be broken up or be subject to a ton of utility-style regulation.
- onemoresoop 1天前I’m sorry, but this should have been made clear in the registration process by Meta and not have entered this dead path at all. Tell me it looks like bad engineering and that together with poor customer support is a reputational damage in the long-term. Not that they have good reputation but it’ll only get worse
- blitzar 18小时前Standard path is to have sex with a few employees at meta to get it unlocked.
https://popcrush.com/onlyfans-star-slept-meta-employees-inst...
- jjcm 1天前This is extremely common, unfortunately, to a point where it's a known/expected outcome when you're first creating a brand or product page among those in the biz.
If this doesn't work, I'd encourage you to reach out to a brand/ad agency and pay them $100 to ask their meta contact to help you get unblocked. You pretty much have to know someone who knows someone at meta in order to create these.
Tip: Do not post about this on twitter or other platforms - you'll get a ton of automated spam.
- qingcharles 1天前Lots of Meta contacts on swapd.com who will take your money and unlock your account. Poster is already at the permanently banned stage, though, which means it's not a simple ticket for a Meta employee, which is normally the $500-1000 range. It's gonna be a $2000+ job.
Can also try here:
- Aurornis 1天前What an interesting site. The number of sellers offering services to get YouTube videos and accounts removed (by spamming fake reports) for hundreds of thousands of dollars is amazing.
I would not assume those people have contacts with Meta employees. They might have a connection with a contracted worker who does account reviews who is willing to risk their job for a few thousand extra bucks, but I also suspect many of them are just scams. When I scrolled the subforum there were many new accounts claiming to offer 100% success rate for unbans. Easy way to scam desperate people.
- qingcharles 1天前All the tasks on that site are done through escrow, IIRC, so however they are doing the unbans, they are getting done!
- prox 1天前Or just leave the pile of crap behind. The more we do, the less the whole system matters. Never been happier since I left last year.
And yes I can already hear the reply the “we need it for…” , sure as a company if you feel you need it. As an individual however, it’s time for the next thing. TikTok, Instagram and Twitter are old and worn and not it. Yesterday’s news. Social media couldn’t be less social if they tried.
- Aurornis 1天前> If this doesn't work, I'd encourage you to reach out to a brand/ad agency and pay them $100 to ask their meta contact to help you get unblocked.
I would not recommend paying anybody anything for this. The problem was that they tried to create an account for a non-human entity, which is against the rules. You have to have a primary account set up for a person, not a business.
- brikym 21小时前I had a similar with Google. I couldn't verify my site for ads and there was no route to get a competent human. But it was fine when an agency did it for me. The problem is that agency take a 20% cut.
- adamddev1 1天前There's an excellent little book in German called "KI und der Neue Faschismus" [1] (AI and the New Fascism) where the author (Rainer Mühlhoff) tries to warn about the dangers of decisions based on opaque statistical models (like LLMs) instead of a clear, human auditable decision process.
[1]: https://rainermuehlhoff.de/KI-und-der-neue-Faschismus-Reclam...
- sebastiennight 1天前Isn't there an EU law that allows any EU citizen the right to transparency and/or appeal as to automated decisions made about them?
- Cider9986 1天前Try using an anti-detect browser. They're built for making new accounts among other things.
- basisword 1天前They're awful with this. Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account. You need to fun everything through your personal account.
- Aurornis 1天前> Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account.
That's because they require accounts to represent an individual. They're pretty clear that it can't be for a business or a non-human entity. You can set up a professional account from your personal account, but the account has to be for a person.
- spike021 1天前I tried creating an entirely separate account for a meetup group and had the same problem. Nothing I tried worked.
- TZubiri 1天前Did you create the account separately? Or as an asset of your main Meta account (like Meta Business Suite)?
I'm creating the accounts in Meta Business Suite, so I would have a recourse with my main personal account which can be linked to some adspend, so I'm assuming it will have better support channels than accounts created through an end-user interface.
- webbdev 1天前This was probably my mistake. This is the first time I've ever done this so I just set up an account like a regular user. I didn't figure out how to link it with my Meta Business Suite until it was too late.
- TZubiri 1天前just created a new "Asset portfolio" from my main facebook account, an asset portfolio is like a bucket that holds other assets like instagram accounts, but it's empty so far.
I used a different email which might have prompted a security review, it was instantly blocked "because it looks like it was created with unauthorized automation", I just clicked on submit a review and it asked for a phone number to verify with a code, and then an ID. I think this is pretty standard, the initial block reason can be whatever, it just works as a de facto way for Meta to manually approve accounts. There's a lot of spam, and scams going on, so it makes sense that they are implementing controls, I for one am happy to differentiate myself from people whose job it is to make multiple accounts and promote fake stories and businesses to scam the elderly or stuff like that.
- loloquwowndueo 1天前This was on hacker news a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359102) - description of the “hack”, not the cockamamie confirmation by Meta.
- jamwise 23小时前This is wild. How did anyone approve this architecture. You should never give your LLM privileged access the current user doesn't have access to. Even if you're not logged in the LLM's tool calls should only be able to access the same flow you would, as in: be able to send a password reset email to your own email! This is like if you had a password reset page for your profile and had a email field you could fill in to have it sent to any email LOL.
- jhhh 1天前Why was 'can a user request a different email' not literally the first test that comes to mind when making something like this? Do they not test anything because the scale is too big?
- gdulli 1天前The nature of the invention is for people to relieve themselves of the burden of having to use their minds. And while there will be exceptions, (including, I'm sure you: the person reading this comment,) the vast majority of people are hungry to use AI in that spirit of being able to be lazy.
- quantummagic 1天前Lazy can be a good thing. Since time and attention are finite and not fungible, it allows you to do something else. There's a reason we're all too lazy to do long arithmetic with pen and paper, instead relieving the burden of using our minds by outsourcing to spreadsheets and calculators. Not only does it allow us to think at a higher level of abstraction, but it also means we can take our kids to the park more often.
- wizzwizz4 1天前https://thethreevirtues.com paraphrases something Larry Wall wrote in Programming Perl:
> If we’re going to talk about good software design, we have to talk about Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris, the basis of good software design.
sourced from https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2026/04/12/the-peril-of-lazines..., where Bryan Cantrill makes the point that:
> The problem is that LLMs inherently lack the virtue of laziness. Work costs nothing to an LLM. LLMs do not feel a need to optimize for their own (or anyone’s) future time, and will happily dump more and more onto a layercake of garbage.
which I think is interesting, albeit somewhat tangential to the current discussion.
- sebastiennight 1天前I don't believe this is true.
Remember the "ChatGPT lazy winter" 2 years ago? (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&que... )
That was truly "lazy", as in "yo... I'm not interested in doing this so I'll half-ass it or just tell someone else to do it".
The kind of "lazy" that is mentioned in your quote is "I don't want to add work to future me's life". I don't think "lazy" is the right word for it.
- GoToRO 12小时前Unforseen side effect: I used AI to write so much code that now I struggle to have a good mental map of it, so I became lazy without having an intention to do so. Fun times!
- joshuat 1天前In their defense, they asked the LLM to make no mistakes
- SXX 1天前And it did no mistakes. System worked exactly as LLM intended.
- TZubiri 1天前Because software professionals are conflating simplicity of user experience with simplicity of dev experience.
During development they were likely not thinking of the user experience, nor even the support agent experience, but on their development experience, they asked the LLM to develop the chatbot, and it worked, and the speed was documented and reported upstream so that shareholders invest, if there is any forethought it would go against the narrative of AI becoming the engineer or 100xing productivity.
- dwa3592 1天前I really hope this accelerates meta's decline. The world will adapt just fine without social media.
- herpdyderp 1天前Realistically, how will this affect Meta at all? Some people are pissed, nobody else cares, business as usual.
- jeffbee 1天前Well, these hacks targeted large influencer accounts. It could have more severe impact than 20k randomly selected accounts.
- topspin 1天前Large influencer accounts without two factor authentication...
The only useful reaction to this is to point and laugh.
- throw101010 1天前Also large influencers who cannot influence much without Meta's platforms... they will simply not complain too much about it if they like their "job".
- chamomeal 23小时前I think the hack bypassed 2FA. If you can call “asking for account access” a hack lmao
- jeffbee 23小时前No. Meta's account recovery flow disables 2FA. It's idiotic. 2FA for Meta accounts serves no beneficial purpose.
- jeffbee 1天前Somehow this company still earns over a billion dollars a week in net profits, which I find puzzling.
- dylan604 22小时前Why? They clearly are not spending money on employee salaries, taxes, or benefits.
- dakolli 1天前What are their alternatives? I'm assuming that most of the 22k people with large audiences that need a large platform to reach them. Meta unfortunately, is the only platform that allows people to reach across many demographics. Its the people that follow the 22k accounts that are important, and they are unaffected by this and thus aren't leaving meta (and 99% won't even know this happened or care).
- asveikau 1天前Depends on the use case, but TikTok is an alternative for many of them, I would say it generally feels more like the place where interesting things are happening vs. meta properties.
- dakolli 1天前I agree, but many do not. Anyways, those 22k people are going to want to be on both regardless.
- the_black_hand 21小时前I'll never understand using AI/bot for customer support. IG is a well know platform. If I have an issue I feel pressed to connect with a support agent about it very likely is something a bot would struggle with, otherwise I'd just google. I understand there some grandmas who can do a google search, but the vast majority of folks reaching out for support are doing so because they have a real issue that can't be simply automated.
Furthermore, having a bot handle a hacked account is support ticket is just insane. Why tf would you put a bot there and give it permission to take action?
- madrasman 8小时前Unlike programmers, most people don’t read long help articles or take multi-step actions. Bots can answer questions directly and take actions (or guide a user through step by step).
- Havoc 1天前>AI-assisted account recovery system
oh no...Meta what are you doing
- rf15 1天前That sweet koolaid taste, how could one resist?
...They really ahouldn't have, and I wonder how this will affect all the big AI IPOs. After all, Meta is one of the big players in the space. Surely if they can't do it right, then...
- acdha 1天前That’s the part I keep thinking about with this story: they have spent over $200 billion dollars on AI and achieved this.
- mschuster91 1天前Account recovery is by far the #1 kind of ticket any service will get. Either because people forget their credentials, lose their credentials, get hacked or get impersonated - and that's just the legitimate tickets, on top of that come illegitimate tickets from everyday script kiddies over ransom extortioners (i.e. the people that aim to steal "valuable" handles) to nation-state actors that, say, want to get access to DMs of people messaging oppositional accounts.
That in turn means three things... it costs a lot of money to have humans look at these tickets, the PR damage from both acting and not acting on such requests can be immense, and users/customers can be anything from the smartest and richest people on the world down to the kind of utter imbeciles whose brains get surpassed by bears [1] or who plainly are not able to write. To make it worse, often enough online services don't have any kind of tie back to some known government-issued ID (either directly or by a proxy such as a mobile phone SIM), there's corruption involved on all levels, and for particularly "juicy" targets the stakes, if they can be converted to a monetary amount at all, can reach into the millions of dollars.
Now, Instagram alone has 3 billion (!) users from across the world, so they are bound to not just having to spend a lot of money on user support (remember, we are talking about the entire world, they also need to deal with about 7.000 (!) actively spoken languages, and having attack targets that are as powerful as US Presidents or as rich as Elon Musk. Clearly, the risk management involved in the entire idea was horribly deficient, but let's not act like this is a trivial problem domain in the first place. And hence the push for AI, simply because it - if done correctly - can take a lot of work off of the first-level support desks for a fraction of the money.
[1] https://velvetshark.com/til/til-smartest-bears-dumbest-touri...
[2] https://www.sapiens.org/language/world-languages-counting-me...
- Havoc 16小时前I get automating most of the interaction but giving the LLM rights to actually grant strangers access to accounts is insane
- anematode 1天前A difficult problem domain, yes... so where was the staged rollout? The penetration testing? Why did it take so long to disable the bot after reports of the exploit surfaced? etc.
- dakolli 1天前You don't need an llm or a human to handle 99% of account recovery tickets. They're just shoving LLMs into everything because decision makers have llm psychosis because openclaw modified their calendar a few times and now think they live in star trek.
- phyzome 1天前Corrected headline: "Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked due to their insecure AI chatbot".
- hero4hire 1天前People were reporting their accounts were being taken over with proper 2fa. Everyone had wondered how they hackers could take over accounts with little information, people were saying "inside job."
This is exactly the stupid explanation I expected. Your privacy and security. Meta. Serious Business.
- thraway3837 23小时前Has the data surfaced somewhere? A lot of IG accounts are private by choice, and this kind of data, if surfaced publicly, could have devastating privacy violations. People share all kinds of stuff on there, a lot of it not meant for public consumption. I'm not wanting a debate on "well you shouldn't put anything private on Facebook's servers or the internet blah blah blah". I'm just curious if the actual contents of the hack have been surfaced.
- zahirbmirza 1天前And who said cameras linked to Meta in their glasses were a good idea?
- whirlwin 1天前I got a suspicious password reset request email today from Meta but it landed in my inbox. Luckily I have MFA and after checking audit logs inside IG upon logging in, I did not see anything suspicious.
- notrealyme123 1天前2FA did not help according to the primary finding
- whirlwin 16小时前In that case it sounds like the last waves of malicious reset attempts happened after the patch was put in place
- dansquizsoft 1天前You only have to look at both the ridiculiously terrible "Q&A chatbot" that is in FaceBook under some posts (do they still have this?) and the fact that their system can't tell the difference between an inappropriate and a non-inappropriate comment most of the time to understand just how far behind Meta is in AI...
- tomashertus 1天前Move fast and break things.
- zuzululu 1天前> as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages
god dang!! we are going to see some juicy stuff
- rvz 1天前If this was a bank that had zero humans and the AI chatbot was abused to hand over sensitive information about their customers which led to this disaster, people would never trust their bank ever again and leave.
Meta believes that they can vibe-code their reputation down the drain by removing humans in the loop.
Applying a technical solution to a social problem almost always ends in disasters like this.
Reputation can’t be vibe-coded.
- CivBase 1天前Meta's brand is already toxic. Idk if there's much to lose there.
- groundzeros2015 1天前Buying more. The vibe here is getting close to 2021
- boppo1 22小时前Is there a way to check if I was affected? Does Meta know who was affected?
- RgrTheShrubbr 1天前The AI passed the Turing Test by becoming the world's most trusting customer service rep.
- alvis 1天前how on earth a password reset API would take both email address and account id as parameters? The chat bot is fine. I bet it's the API written by AI the issue
- cyanydeez 1天前"abusing" by using it's built in insecurity to do insecure things.
It's like, people abusing an open door. "Guys, just because we left the door open to your bedroom doesn't mean we're responsible".
God can only hope this is a business ending lawsuit.
- lazide 1天前It won’t be.
also this is more like them leaving the keys in the door, then someone comes along, uses the keys, and steals all your stuff.
truthfully, no equipment is actually defective in this scenario eh?
- topaz0 1天前If we're nitpicking metaphors I think it's more accurate to say it's like they were taking requests to rekey the lock on your door.
- teaearlgraycold 1天前> God can only hope this is a business ending lawsuit.
You realize this is the company that enabled a genocide and got away with it? Not to mention accelerating teenager suicides with full knowledge.
- cyanydeez 1天前why epse would i invoke a mythical diety
- latexr 15小时前Meta is clearly staying true to their ethos. “Move fast and break things”, “ask for forgiveness, not permission”, “have your security researcher delete their own email email by accident and then refuse to learn anything and use that same system to manage user accounts”.
- itsnkr2293 18小时前Where is the security left now?
- Fairburn 1天前Are we winning yet?
- hayaan25929 16小时前Just.me_samiyy hacked
- hayaan25929 16小时前Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot
- pluc 1天前By "abusing" they mean "using"
- globular-toast 1天前No, it's still abuse. Just like it's still stealing even if I left my front door unlocked.
- sebastiennight 1天前The appropriate metaphor would rather be your landlord deciding to renovate the entire back wall of your apartment/house to make it an open-air design.
People coming in from the street to hang out and rifle through your belongings would still be "abusing" the system according to the law, but it's hard to not consider the landlord somewhat responsible.
- pluc 1天前It's not stealing if you give it to me, regardless of your door
- naik11 12小时前I want to hacke one instgram account
- smrtinsert 1天前How do business owners hire people from Meta knowing these types of "bugs" get deployed with a shrug? Meta will survive them. Their business might not.
- anonzzzies 18小时前Is there a tl;dr? are these people getting their accounts back?
- _RPM 1天前Probably some product manager pushed back on security considerations raised by engineers.
- empiree 1天前Yet another reminder that most of these chatbots get shipped way before they're ready. Loud marketing, security treated as an afterthought, all to ride the AI hype. LLMs open up a whole new attack surface and a lot of teams still treat prompt injection like a fun edge case. This is what happens when you ship the demo instead of the product.
- butler14 17小时前Silicon Valley’s finest
- toomuchtodo 1天前https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
https://www.maine.gov/agviewer/content/ag/985235c7-cb95-4be2...
- sva_ 1天前> Date(s) Breach Occured: 04/17/2026
> Date Breach Discovered: 05-31-2026
- mcintyre1994 1天前I’m guessing they have no functional human support for the people who had their accounts stolen. I get the impression Meta didn’t know this was happening until they were contacted by the media.
- Terr_ 1天前> no functional human support
I've seen some reporting saying exactly that. [0]
It might be a "first-world problem", but having an account lost without appeal can justly be labeled "traumatic", especially if post-COVID it represents a majority of your social (or para-social) life.
[0] https://www.404media.co/hackers-simply-asked-meta-ai-to-give...
- Chu4eeno 1天前> It might be a "first-world problem", but having an account lost without appeal can justly be labeled "traumatic", especially if post-COVID it represents a majority of your social (or para-social) life.
Also possibly illegal under GDPR section 22.
- Lionga 1天前Just AI Slop doing AI Slop things
- paulpauper 1天前Imagine how much $ ppl could have made hijacking famous accounts to promote crypto or other crap. I wonder how often this happened.
- sspoisk 6小时前[flagged]
I also can't believe the people who were involved with writing this response from Meta, didn't realize how obviously bad it sounds. It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
Don't know if AI is to blame, but I've used to see these kinds of nonsense post-mortems even in the pre-llm era, and it's always due to some internal fighting ongoing between various departments.
"You, alright! I learned it by watching you!"
(Usually said jocularly when everyone is at their most upset, e.g. a vacation ruined)
Meta has never been a place for people with empathy to thrive or succeed. They literally enabled a genocide. Despite being warned by internal employees, profits were more important.
In news media, sure. But in IT teams around the world people will be referring to this (the exploit opening stupidity) for years as how NOT to do things. :)
I agree with you that in a week nobody will be talking any more, but I'm pretty sure it's a GDPR data breach, and they can have some trouble within EU.
Yeah, they probably don't give a fu.. about EU, but if the response doesn't matter at all why did they spend time on it?
> The creosote in toothache drops administered to a New York boy cured the pain, but killed the boy. This recalls the entry in the register at Bellevue Hospital, which reads; "Operation successful. Patient died."
The Argonaut, San Francisco, December 22, 1883.
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
> The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
> Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
This isn't (just) a validation issue, and shouldn't be at the harness level.
Humans support agents certainly fall prey to social engineering all the time, but I can’t think of a case where it was done on this scale so easily.
Having a support agent likely made it easier to enumerate the vuln, and certainly made it easier to scale out exploitation once it was discovered.
But it’s irrelevant, outside of PR. We know at least THREE bad components to this process and they were constituent parts.
But it's important to acknowledge that there was a 'bug' in an underlying tool and not in the chatbot, and still PIP/fire those responsible for publishing the chatbot and exposed an otherwise internal tool to the public, and not those that introduced the 'bug' to an internal tool.
Also, why fire anyone after a single mistake?
So yeah, firing somebody or a group of people is on the table. Especially when like 10% of the company was fired last week for unrelated reasons. If you are gonna do it, fire the people who slash the value of your company by billions of dollars.
I pointed out that updoc is nonsense and asked why it didn't catch that. The answer was that it was my fault for giving it bad info.
While the "stochastic parrots" thing is a bit overblown, IME most LLMs tend to surprisingly different responses even without changing the context, especially if they're hallucinating or doing something "wrong".
I continue to believe we could fix a lot of things in the US if we updated the UCC[1] to disallow 'disclaiming liability on software used in a product.'
[1] Universal Commercial Code -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc
If I sell a physical motor (let alone plans for one) I'll have some liability for things like it Not Exploding. If someone buys a dozen of those motors to assemble a tragically unsafe "rollercoaster" of their own design and construction, I'm almost certainly not responsible for any terrifying decapitations.
In other words, most of the world already does not rely on the issuance of "Get Out Of Infinite Liability Free" cards.
To Terr_'s point, if you were publishing open source you would also publish exactly the things you intended it to be used for and anything else would violate your warranty (possibly implied) that it does what the documentation says it does.
There is a huge amount of tort law that covers exactly when it becomes a problem for you the creator vs you the user in your own project. And that liability is also based on once you know something bad could happen you make an effort to notify people[1].
[1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...
Nobody's going to be distributing software on the internet for free if the cost of insurance alone precludes that.
Guess what, I'm not liable for the damage. Why? Because I immediately responded once I knew that it could, I made a good effort to warn people who might already have the code of the risk, and I made it clear in the code that this risk is there.
Ever wonder why you get a booklet of warnings when you buy a product with even really stupid things like "Don't clean with gasoline" warnings? That's because once you have discharged your duty to warn you are not longer liable in what happens if someone ignores your warning.
The flip side is also true, you cannot say in your product both "Hey this product does these cool things" and "We don't warrant the product to actually do anything." This is especially true if there is money involved (like your user paid your some $ for the product.) There is always an implied warranty that the thing will do what you says it will do, which exists as long as the user has heeded all your warnings.
"a FOSS author did something wrong and was found to be liable"
In fairness, I not sure the earlier commentator really understood what they were saying, at least not as far as legal liability is concerned.
The FOSS author simply wrote some code and shared it right? That is their 'action' can you think of ways that does direct harm, which is to say they published their code, and with nothing else happening someone got harmed? One way that can cause harm is the FOSS author publishes a trade secret[1] or access credentials of a third party. In both cases they could (and would) be sued by that third party. But absent that, I'm having a hard time coming up where simply the existence of most code causes someone else harm.
So to get to harm we have to add another person, that person somehow applies the code, and in that application harms another person. Our FOSS author might be sued as being contributory because the person who caused harm might not have done so if they didn't have access to the code. To prove that, the plaintiff would have to prove that the FOSS author knew that the code could cause harm if used in this way, and encouraged or otherwise abetted the person who did harm to use it in doing the harm. That can be a hard standard to reach[2].
In your car example, it would be challenging to prove that Daniel Stenberg wrote curl so that you could use it to brick car infotainment systems. But it would be easier to prove that a manufacturer that incorporated FOSS code and didn't check their system for risks like this should be found liable.
Liability accrues first to the party that did the action. Secondary liability can reach out to suppliers[3] of things used in that action. This is also civil law rather than criminal law and so it works a bit differently in terms of evidence standards and penalties.
[1] We can make a joke here about badly formatted code, but hopefully we're in a agreement so far. A real example was the DVD decoding software that included the key for decoding encrypted DVDs.
[2] Not that people might not try, its too easy to sue. There have been cases where someone wrote some code that was later used in a weapon (and example might be Ardupilot software in drones used to kill Russians). But even in that case, the courts in the US at least have consistently found that if it is not the primary purpose of the software to do harm, then the author is not liable.
[3] Unless you're a gun company as Gun companies have managed to keep themselves from being found liable for people using their guns to do harm. But there is also lots of interesting case law there too which might help inform.
Now if I were running a small business I might choose not worry about the tail risk of my product causing a few million dollars in harm or (more likely) I'd have insurance to cover that. But someone tossing code along the side of the road presumably doesn't have (and doesn't want to think about) insurance and meanwhile the tail risk has become nearly unbounded thanks to the effectively arbitrary number of deployed instances.
I think there's also some benefit to having a big fat NO WARRANTY clause at the top of the license file because it might give you a better chance of a summary dismissal (or even deter the other party from trying in the first place) since as we all know the process itself can be ruinous even if you eventually prevail.
Which is all to say that I share your view. Willingly negligent vendors that cut costs by omitting security while viewing the resultant mishaps as an inescapable reality ought to be held accountable. But I think it would also be a good idea to add an official exemption for software that's made available free of charge. It seems like if you pick something up off the side of the road any mishaps that follow from that should necessarily fall to you.
No bro - open source and the internet existed long before SV tech parasitism did and will exist long after.
When I reflect back to someone making this argument by saying, "So your argument is that you make your living as a pick pocket, but if pick pocketing is made to be illegal, you won't be able to make a living." Which of course would only be true if they only thing they could do was 'be a pick pocket'. Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed. All the arguments that "you'll put all coal miners out of business if you require only green energy" And yet the people, the miners themselves, will likely be fine. The firms might not, but there are other firms that could exist.
This isn't a new problem, or one specific to this web site, although it does get disproportionately hit because so many technology companies saw what Google started in the 2000's and said, "Man there is soooo many ways to get money for this." rather than, "Is this a reasonable way to make money? Sure it is 'perfectly legal' but is it right? Is it moral?" The type of person who thinks that something is "Only illegal if you get caught" is neither moral nor particularly concerned about what is right. And we got a lot of that type.
Thank you for putting this so eloquently into words. This rigid thinking is also common in topics such as working conditions, collective bargaining, on-call time, parental leave, healthcare, and effectively (unintentionally or not) shuts down conversation.
I've come to realize the objections from people who think this way all effectively boil down to 'Be grateful for what you have because any alternative would be worse.' But if you pry and ask that they expand you'll find there really isn't any there there, because it's black and white thinking. It isn't rooted in fact, it comes from fear. I sure hope we haven't collectively forgot how to even imagine a system that functions better than the one we have today.
1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore this must be done!
Right now, any lawsuit against me can be dismissed on summary judgement because even if my software causes harm, that's not a legal wrong to the extent I've disclaimed liability.
If you adopt any fact-specific standard for liability, that needs to be adjudicated in a trial. The legal fees alone would surpass the actual liability.
That creates huge leverage for the party with more resources. That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give.
I think you're assuming some kind of worst-possible outcome that hasn't been proposed and is unlikely to be enacted. To quote from earlier in the thread: "Disallow disclaiming liability on software used in a product."
I don't think that changes your hobby work on a rational-math library or an MVC framework or whatever, since you aren't making a business out of it. It will affect that large enterprise if they roll out their new product "Yearning 4 Mines: Gatcha Gig-work For Kids."
The problem is when the backend function doesn't verify that the email matches the username.
Or perhaps said different: use the submitted info to identify the account; send any sensitive messages (recovery codes, password resets whatever) to only the contact info on file. If the chat bot can send such email it should do so via an API that sends only to contact info on file for the associated account and not to an email that's provided by the bot.
In principle, it could be designed to do so to handle cases where a new email address has been confirmed out of band, e.g. for an account representing a company or a political office. But that's a relatively unusual situation, not something you'd want to be available to every user writing in. (Even if you had an all-human support department, this sort of functionality would only be available to a select few agents.)
(Pick one:
"send text to number ending in -1234"
"send text to number ending in -5678"
"send email to [email protected]" )
Unless the backend was _also_ vibe-coded, in which case it is still an AI problem.
But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem. That is, the humans did the job, because they recognized the need to do that job.
Sure sometimes accounts could get recovered if a human was tricked, but evidently it was easier to trick the LLM in masse than humans.
In fact it's arguably a feature. The ability of support staff to short-circuit nitpicky rules when there's an obvious external validation happening (e.g. you're on the phone with a user who's presenting ID in real time and correlating it with previous use of the account, etc...) makes for better data quality and happier customers.
Obviously, yes, you can then human-engineer an authentication breach. But that was very difficult, because people are "common-sense careful" in a way we haven't been able to tease out of AI yet.
This notice is not about comparing humans and LLMs. It seems that the system was designed in the only reasonable way: with a deterministic permissions layer separate from the agent. But that layer failed to work properly.
So the notice is comparing the difference between how the system was supposed to work and how it actually worked in reality. Normal post-mortem stuff.
As you do. All AI failures are caused by bad prompting because AIs are perfect.
-Lionel Hutz, Simpsons, Season 9 - "Realty Bites"
The author of the post is close to the author of the AI code on the org chart
> however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify
The author of the post is far from the author of this "code path" on the org chart
Don’t read too much into it. Facebook wants to face as little accountability and keep the future class action lawsuit to a minimum.
P.S. Would you like to have our teenager manage your system too? Terms are reasonable! Of course you accept all liability, so better get a good minder - and no, don’t use an AI as the minder, that just introduces a new failure mode.
What I gather is that this internal tool was used by human support agents, and it was their responsibility to verify the email adresses and general validity of a claim.
But when implementing AGI TM that was overseen, maybe the oversight in the separate code path was a 'bug', but the mistake was making the chatbot obviously, if the separate code path had a bug, then it had become ossified into a feature, and it was internal, not exposed to the public.
This is an external communication, to save face sure, but if this is the internal excuse, it would be absolutely the wrong RCA and it reads as if the one who made the mistake is not admitting they made their mistake. Which to be honest, just making the mistake is enough to get fired, but not admitting it is enough to get ultra fired.
I am not saying it's like a nuclear bomb. Rather like the first guns brought into fights the others were perfectly prepared for ti fight with swords and didn't even know yet, about this fascinating invention called a gun. Sounds interesting. Let me inspect it. Oh wow, that's interesting technology. What happens if i push that thing back? Will it re... oops...
Thank god that we have honourable people like altman, zuckerberg, musk. Imagine how bad all this would turn within the next few years, if major decisions were made by self-serving, delusional, greedy egomaniacs...
Of course currently let's first hope those wars and all the tension in societies all over the world, in war or peace, won't explode into something really, really bad. Looking at history, i fear we see how social tension on large scale over time... not saying it's not obvious to almost everyone. So well, let's just keep hoping. Maybe throwing blackbox AI tech into the mix, would surprise and change course of history. Actually, while i am thinking about it, i think i just changed my opinion into the opposite position, lol. Honestly, if it's 50/50 that this will lead to the worst possible outcome intensified, it's still better than just checking boxes following the "humans slowly stumbling into near-extinction experiences 101" handbook. Because just according to that, we're lucky if we're off by 10 years. There must be a big change in humanity and how the world is currently constructed, for all this leading to anything other than what we should expect from history. If we kept all nations busy with huge technological issues, that made all of their personal lifes so complicated, turn every elitists luxury into a burden, busy to defend what they own, while they can't realize, that normal life has changed so much, they now are the ones, frozen in life. They would have no time for conflict.
This sounds totally logical. In any other scenario, it would be pretty insane what we are all doing and entertaining (including me, top10 hypocrite).
I fear it's too late to turn ship, yet we still can jump ship.
---
Especially because now thinking about the thoughts that just went through my head, maybe (technological) disruptions are actually disrupting. But not a status quo of an economic model.
But a pretty clear loop of human nature and "humans in societies". And the more often we disrupt this loop, the more time we get before it's ready to start over again.
And now we have something that has the potential to change all fundamentals so much, that all the major conditions inside this loops iteration become meaningless. The environment changes so much, the state of the checkboxes gets emptied. Cache invalidated. Indices are gone.
Oh, i know how dumb this sounds. I am not even trying to claim anything. I didn't even think about it before, this is just a note of the words that i typed, almost on autopilot. No idea if i believe a part of this could be real. But even thought, just as a mere fictional story, it already entertained me.