Monthly Archives: October 2016

When Facebook tries to stalk your business

Every couple of weeks I get email from Facebook along these lines:

 

Yup, Facebook is stalking me.

In its remorseless scanning of everyone’s private information, Facebook has figured out a personal phone number for me, and now it is “helpfully” trying to make that a public piece of information by associating it with my company instead.

And it’s not just phone numbers: Facebook tries repeatedly to associate my home address with my company’s page as well, because, you know, it would suck if any part of the Internet were “inaccurate or out of date.”

I guess I should feel flattered that I am as worthy of stalking as the best B-list celebrity, but there’s also the incompetence common to any creep who thinks he can safely hide in the bushes.

Clicking through on the “Review Page Info” link always lands me on an dead-end page:

 

Let’s all sing along…

If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,

It’s just a spring clean for the May queen.

Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run

There’s still time to change the road you’re on.

And it makes me wonder.

By the way, I learned to program in 1978, so I can tell by now when someone writes crappy code. Facebook does.

Bug, fixed: Apparently 40 characters wasn’t enough for a name

Unexpected bug we encountered recently: an attempt to sign up as a Kerika user, using our direct sign up process, failed.

When we looked into the error logged on our server, we discovered that this user was trying to enter a first+last name combination that came to 42 characters; our code assumed that no name would exceed 40 characters in length.

Digging a little further into the user scenario, we discovered that these were accounts that were being opened in the name of organizations, or departments within an organization, rather than actual people.

So while 40 characters may have been enough for most “real people” names, it wasn’t enough for department names, e.g. something like “Kerika Marketing Communications Team”.

Live and learn.

Learning to live with email sandboxing

We spent hours recently trying to understand why a particular user wasn’t able to join her coworkers boards, before finally figuring out that it was her company’s “email sandboxing” that was messing up Kerika’s invitation flow

The problem was a real nuisance to debug, and we fear it will affect more of our users in the future so we are going to make a change to our invitation process to make sure it continues to work well for everyone.

Some background:

“Email sandboxing” refers to a process that tries to trap malicious URLs that are included in emails.  While the exact implementation varies by security vendor, the basic process is the same: use a virtual machine as a sandbox, and click on every URL contained within an email.

This can trap a lot of malware emails.  If the URLs are designed to be single-use only, i.e. the URL is unique and intended to be clicked upon just once, the sandbox will “explode” the mine before the user gets to it.

More sophisticated implementations of sandboxing will handle multi-use URLs by watching for return traffic from the sender’s machine, which would indicate (potential) attempts to download malicious software onto the recipient’s computer.

The problem with sandboxing:

The sandboxing approach takes the same brute force approach to all links, in all emails, without trying to understand the context of the email itself.

One consequence may be that “Unsubscribe” links contained in newsletters are clicked on automatically by the email sandbox virtual machine, so the recipient gets just one copy of a newsletter that she signed up for.

To get around this, systems that generate emails automatically, like a newsletter, have to move from a one-click unsubscribe (which would be more user-friendly) to a two-step unsubscribe process (which is more annoying to the user.)

You will have seen the two-step unsubscribe process more and more often in your own newsletters and other mass mailings: you click on the “Unsubscribe” link in a newsletter, and you land on a web page where you are asked to, once again, confirm that you want to unsubscribe.

The user might think this is a last-ditch attempt by the newsletter publisher to hold on to their readers, but it might actually be an attempt to safeguard the newsletter’s subscribers from their own brute force security implementations!

How this affected Kerika:

When you invite someone to join your Kerika board, as a Team Member, Board Admin or Visitor, the invitation gets sent to them by email as well from within the Kerika app.  The emailed invitation looks like this example:

Example of invitation email

Example of invitation email

The email contains two links: the most prominent is the Accept Invitation, but there’s also the Reject Invitation.

Email sandboxing plays havoc with this sort of email invitation: there is an equal possibility that a particular sandbox will click on the Reject Invitation link before it clicks on the Accept Invitation link, which leads to a completely random experience for users who are being invited by the coworkers to join Kerika boards, since Kerika lets you act just once upon an invitation: once you accept it, or reject it, you can’t act upon it a second time.

How we discovered this problem:

One of our users, based in California ,was trying — repeatedly and unsuccessfully — to invite another user, based in Taiwan, to join one of her boards, and the process kept failing.

And for the longest time we couldn’t figure out why!

Our debugging seemed to suggest Kerika itself was somehow auto-rejecting invitations on the user’s behalf, which had us really worried about a serious bug in the server before one of our developers got the idea that perhaps the problem was with the user’s email system, and not Kerika.

When he examined the headers on an email we got from the affected user, he found references like these:

Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.10])

A little more sleuthing led us to Symantec’s “threat protection” service, which is one of the common email sandboxing systems out there.

How we are fixing this:

We are moving to a two-step process for people who want to reject invitations that come to them by email: clicking on the Reject Invitation will now take you to a Web page where you will be asked to confirm that you want to reject the invitation.

It’s one more step for users, and not the kind of superb user experience we aim for, but without this there’s no way for us to make sure that the best intentions of security vendors don’t end up crippling our own business!

Sorry for the disruption in service this morning!

We switched over to Google as the registrar for a number of our domains yesterday (we used to use a mix of GoDaddy and Register.com previously), and in the process our DNS got screwed up.

We didn’t realize this right away because it affected one of our subdomains (which meant the website itself was up and running, but one of the ways in which you can sign into Kerika was messed up.)

The basic problem was with Google’s way of handling incoming transfers of domains that have already been set up: even if you use the setting for keeping your current domains, Google doesn’t keep your current DNS settings for all the subdomains as well.

Our apologies for everyone affected by this!

Update on 10:15AM PST Oct 6:

We are still waiting for Google’s bazillion DNS servers to all get the new DNS entries.  It’s a bit hit-or-miss for individual users, depending upon which Google server they get routed to when they try to login.

Here in the Seattle area, for example, we can login consistently, but we know some of our users can’t. In India it is literally a 50:50 chance that your Kerika session will connect to an updated DNS server or not.  In the UK the problem seems mostly fixed now.