It's "good" if you're enumerating a potential target!
Otherwise, you typically either want to make your URLs intuitively discoverable or not discoverable at all. An incrementing ID like this is neither, so it sits in a weird middle ground that probably satisfies nobody (except those trying to get things done who don't care, I guess).
The incrementing itself wasn't the issue! It's all the other stuff around their scraping and apparently their provable desire to harm AT&T that got them convicted.
Comments
It's "good" if you're enumerating a potential target!
Otherwise, you typically either want to make your URLs intuitively discoverable or not discoverable at all. An incrementing ID like this is neither, so it sits in a weird middle ground that probably satisfies nobody (except those trying to get things done who don't care, I guess).
Incrementing a URL can (and has) get you prison time.
https://www.wired.com/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/
The incrementing itself wasn't the issue! It's all the other stuff around their scraping and apparently their provable desire to harm AT&T that got them convicted.
Definitely not going to argue with you on that. But it did all start with the simple addition to the URL.
Odd they didn't use his handle. I figured it was weev but never knew his real name.
In the same way that squeezing on a hunk of metal that some may call a "trigger" can get you convicted for murder.