Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

["Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas () googlemail com>]

Hello Zalewski,

The YouTube service is there to serve harmless media files. The upload
functionality is there to upload files legitimately. But what type of
files, and who can write those files?

What's the difference between a Youtube admin and a Youtube user in terms
of permissions sets ?

Why does Youtube accepts only a certain type of media-files? Isn't it
because that's the scope of its function .... ?



A good point made, however based on recognised practise and core principles
of Information Security and not just 'experience' or personal belief, once
the information security flow of a design is tampered - that constitutes to
a security issue.

Second point - a security vulnerability is present when the
confidentiality, integrity and availability of data is affected. In this
case the integrity of the service is impacted.



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx>wrote:

> > The only reasonable way to 'exploit' the bug is using youtube as a
> > "personal storage" uploading non-video files to your own profile: so
> what?
>
> That would require a way to retrieve the stored data, which - as I
> understand - isn't possible here (although the report seems a bit
> hard-to-parse). From what I recall, you can just upload a blob of data
> and essentially see it disappear.
>
> We do have quite a few services where you can legitimately upload and
> share nearly-arbitrary content, though. Google Drive is a good
> example.
>
> /mz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/