Serious concern: Why were XenForo customers never informed about this alleged internal data leak?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So no, it isn’t black and white. You’re speaking more definitively than the court did. @Blatchy
The issue is that some people are not carefully enough assessing what they really know but rather create beliefs and take shortcuts to conclusions and judgements that are not covered by what they really know. And as the don't even bother to read the primary sources available (which are secondary sources full of missed out details already) they rely on third party sources (misleading AI generated post) on Admin Zone or on what others posted here (and partly made up) that they rushed through uncritically and present what they made up in their heads from it as "facts". Lack of critical thinking abilities and willingness combined with eagerness for sensationalism, I'd assume.
 
Last edited:
No, that’s not how this follows. If the judgment doesn’t establish that XenForo authorised or knew about an improper disclosure, that doesn’t become evidence of a backdoor. It simply means the access path and responsibility haven’t been established. A backdoor is a very specific technical allegation. It implies an intentional hidden access mechanism into customer systems. Nothing in the judgment establishes that. What the judgment describes is an unresolved source issue involving information that may have come from any number of places: a rogue individual, a compromised mailbox, an old support ticket or purchase email, a contractor, someone connected to Tattle Life, downstream circulation from an earlier NPO disclosure, or another access path entirely.

You’re taking an evidential gap and filling it with the most dramatic technical explanation available. That’s not analysis. That’s speculation.
 
"and doesn’t say XenForo as a company authorised or knew about any improper disclosure."

And thats exactly how the backdoor theory you railed against got started.
@Starbucks did not elaborate where his silly backdoor claim came from but clearly, assumed it was true (which it clearly is not) he claimed any staff member of XF would have access to any customer forums ACP. Now tell me, where in the ACP of your forum one would find purchase dates of your forum license and the credit card data used for that (shortened to only parts of the number) and the physical and email addresses of the buyer.
 
A hacked email would disclose multiple purchase orders? Cmon man...
Contact at XF dot Com would as it sends out the name and license expiration. Minus one year and you have the name and purchase date. 🤷‍♂️
 
No, that’s not how this follows. If the judgment doesn’t establish that XenForo authorised or knew about an improper disclosure, that doesn’t become evidence of a backdoor. It simply means the access path and responsibility haven’t been established. A backdoor is a very specific technical allegation. It implies an intentional hidden access mechanism into customer systems. Nothing in the judgment establishes that. What the judgment describes is an unresolved source issue involving information that may have come from any number of places: a rogue individual, a compromised mailbox, an old support ticket or purchase email, a contractor, someone connected to Tattle Life, downstream circulation from an earlier NPO disclosure, or another access path entirely.

You’re taking an evidential gap and filling it with the most dramatic technical explanation available. That’s not analysis. That’s speculation.
You keep saying backdoor, backdoor, backdoor.. one person said it. I just was pointing out thats probably how it started by that ONE person.
 
You keep saying backdoor, backdoor, backdoor.. one person said it. I just was pointing out thats probably how it started by that ONE person.
I keep saying the same thing because you keep trying to explain a leap that doesn’t follow.
 
Contact at XF dot Com would as it sends out the name and license expiration. Minus one year and you have the name and purchase date. 🤷‍♂️
Same would obviously true if someone had access to the emails of the buyer. So if it was limited to those things this could also be true or it could even be someone from a tax advisors office who got that mail to use it in the tax declaration. The court seems to have thought with a high probability the source was inside XenForo respectively had access to internal data of XF.
Given that there was other data mentioned (as the IP of the server) it could well be that this is true. Or not. However: All of what we do here is massive speculation on a very thin basis and as wider part of the people are not even willing to sorrowly read or respect the basics to speculate on this makes absolutely no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frm
I keep saying the same thing because you keep trying to explain a leap that doesn’t follow.
??????????????????????????????

I never once mentioned this backdoor theory other then point out how I can see how the conclusion was reached. Any further attempts to connect me to it are flat out wrong.
 
You did argue around why that conclusion may have been reached, and that’s what I was responding to.

??? :)
 
??????????????????????????????
“Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.” - Terry Pratchett.

Also true for multiple question marks, I guess. Pratchett's diagnosis was btw. on basis of five exclamation marks, so we do have an even more serious case here.
 
You keep saying backdoor, backdoor, backdoor.. one person said it. I just was pointing out thats probably how it started by that ONE person.
I may have misunderstood it and used the word “backdoor” incorrectly. That said, my concern comes from the way the question was handled, not just the terminology itself.
Do you have a source for such a claim? Because I've read the documents you've pointed people to and nothing mentions anything like that.

I would urge you to read and correctly comprehend what you're reading before making such baseless claims.
What stands out to me is that there was no direct denial. Most companies, when confronted with concerns about unauthorized access to customer admin panels, immediately and clearly state something along the lines of:

"No, XenForo does not have any hidden or privileged access mechanism into customer admin panels."

Instead, the response focused on discrediting the wording of my question and my interpretation of the documents, rather than explicitly addressing the underlying concern itself.

That doesn’t automatically prove anything malicious, but from a security and transparency perspective, I think it’s reasonable to question why a straightforward clarification was avoided. Especially in situations involving trust, customer data, and platform security, vague or defensive answers naturally raise more questions than they resolve.

And before people say, "He just didn’t want to engage with your ridiculous post" I want to make it clear that, at least from my perspective, this is a serious matter involving trust and platform security. And well, even if my wording was imperfect or my concerns turned out to be unfounded, the simplest and most reassuring response would have been a direct statement such as:

"No, there is no hidden access or backdoor into customer admin panels."

That’s what makes the response feel unusual to me. Instead of clearly denying the existence of such access, the focus was placed on dismissing the question itself. People can call my post ridiculous if they want, but when the topic involves potential privileged access to customer data, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a straightforward answer.

Edit based on @Blatchy’s comment:
Dismissing it as “absurdity” doesn’t really address the core point I raised. My concern is not some discussion about XenForo secretly spying on people (they for sure have better things to do like finishing 3.0), it’s about transparency and how a legitimate security-related question was answered.

But sure, let’s call it absurd haha
 
Last edited:
What stands out to me is that there was no direct denial. Most companies, when confronted with concerns about unauthorized access to customer admin panels, immediately and clearly state something along the lines of:

"No, XenForo does not have any hidden or privileged access mechanism into customer admin panels."
Why would anyone honor such a ridiculous claim that has no foundation at all with an answer? It was and is clear as water that you made this up from nothing and also, given your first and the follow up posts in this thread that you are either unable or unwilling for a serious discussion based on facts. So why put petrol in the fire by reacting to your ******** claims and giving you the attention that you seem to be eager for?

You could equally have claimed that Chris would drink children's blood for breakfast and complained that he didn't deny it afterwards and take it as a proof that he really does. Braindead circular argumentation.

The only thing that you have achieved is that through your various postings in this thread you have lost any credibility that you might have had left before. Which means: Whatever you may claim in future: Probably no one will believe you as you have proven that you are not trustworthy.
 
Why would anyone honor such a ridiculous claim that has no foundation at all with an answer? It was and is clear as water that you made this up from nothing and also, given your first and the follow up posts in this thread that you are either unable or unwilling for a serious discussion based on facts. So why put petrol in the fire by reacting to your ******** claims and giving you the attention that you seem to be eager for?

The only thing that you have achieved is that you have lost any credibility that you might have had through your various postings in this threads. Which means: Whatever you may claim in future: Probably no one will believe you as you have proven that you are not trustworthy.
I’m not looking for credibility, and I don’t need anyone’s trust here on this platform. I mean.. I write these posts while having a coffee or a drink in my free time, while enjoying the sun in the swimming pool, life is great at this side of the world.

I like it tho that you feel attached to this community, so I hope that posts like these, make you feel proud, arguing with a random boy with a Starbucks avatar (I like their coffee, sorry!) is just part of it I guess hahaha but your novel replies are interesting to read tho, but I know we will never agree... So let’s, agree to disagree to my “nonsense” posts! 😎

And language please, no need to insult each other señor! All I try to do here is just.. post my thoughts, without the need for credibility or winning the “trust” from a random person on the web!

But again, I appreciate (I really do, no sarcasm!) that you write these long novel posts explaining your thoughts and keep insisting how “lunatic” I am, and that you took the time to research stuff, but well.. it’s getting hot rn, even here at the pool, it’s 31° degrees, and 11am, so I might go wash my coffee mug, and start working…

I check in later tho! :)
 
Last edited:
If people want to form an opinion, then they should read the whole court document.
On the general case and the story behind it there are two articles dating to summer 2025 that I found interesting:

This one


is about the court ruling and relatively short.

This one


excessively tells the whole story more or less along timeline - it is very long, the website takes forever to load, but one gets loads of context which clearly helps with an opinion about the case and also fills a couple of information gaps. XF is not directly mentioned though.
 
On the general case and the story behind it there are two articles dating to summer 2025 that I found interesting:

This one


is about the court ruling and relatively short.

This one


excessively tells the whole story more or less along timeline - it is very long, the website takes forever to load, but one gets loads of context which clearly helps with an opinion about the case and also fills a couple of information gaps. XF is not directly mentioned though.
You should be encouraging posters to read the actual filings not some editorialized page
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom