German law is making security research a risky business.

Current news: A court found a developer guilty of “hacking.” His crime: he was tasked with looking into a software that produced way too many log messages. And he discovered that this software was making a MySQL connection to the vendor’s database server.

When he checked that MySQL connection, he realized that the database contained data belonging to not merely his client but all of the vendor’s customers. So he immediately informed the vendor – and while they fixed this vulnerability they also pressed charges.

There was apparently considerable discussion as to whether hardcoding database credentials in the application (visible as plain text, not even decompiling required) is sufficient protection to justify hacking charges. But the court ruling says: yes, there was a password, so there is a protection mechanism which was circumvented, and that’s hacking.

I very much hope that there will be a next instance ruling overturning this decision again. But it’s exactly as people feared: no matter how flawed the supposed “protection,” its mere existence turns security research into criminal hacking under the German law. This has a chilling effect on legitimate research, allowing companies to get away with inadequate security and in the end endangering users.

Source: https://www.heise.de/news/Warum-ein-Sicherheitsforscher-im-Fall-Modern-Solution-verurteilt-wurde-9601392.html

Gericht sieht Nutzung von Klartext-Passwörtern als Hacken an

Der Programmierer, der eine gravierende Lücke in der Software der Firma Modern Solution aufgedeckt hat, fällt unter den Hackerparagrafen, meint das Gericht.

heise online
@WPalant From the article I read that the judge is actually on the side on the defendant, but does have no other option - the law currently states this.
Possibly the judge hoped that a higher court can make a precedence. This would not be the first case where the judge and the defendant agreed on a (very) mild sentence to allow a revision/appeal to create ruling by a higher court.