Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

[Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki () gmail com>]

I don't see what OSI model has to do with anything here. Why is arbitrary
file upload to youtube CDN any worse than to google drive CDN? And how will
your "self-executing encrypted virus like Cryptolocker" end up getting
executed anyways? And cryptolocker was definitely not "self-executing", but
spread via email attachments (excluding the boring USB spread
functionality).

What you have here is not a vulnerability, just give up. And stop trying to
get "journalists" like Eduard Kovacs to spread your BS.

2014-03-13 19:10 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas () googlemail com>:

> Hello Julius,
>
> I appreciate your interest to learn more. OWASP is quite credible, and has
> gained some international recognition. It is a benchmark for many vendors.
> I suggest you to read on OSI/7-Layer Model. A website may disallow uploads
> of certain file types for security reasons, and let's assume at the
> application layer. If we manage to get past the security controls, that
> means  we can write unrestrictedly any type of file to the remote network.
> That also means that we get past their firewall, since the communication is
> through HTTP (port 80). CDN nodes are deployed to multiple colocation
> (thousands of nodes and thousands of servers across the world). The files
> (let's say a self-executing encrypted virus like Cryptolocker? ) are cached
> deeply in the network across thousands of servers.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
> lem.nikolas () googlemail com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Julius,
> >
> > I appreciate your interest to learn more. OWASP is quite credible, and
> > has gained some international recognition. It is a benchmark for many
> > vendors. I suggest you to read on OSI/7-Layer Model. A website may disallow
> > uploads of certain file types for security reasons, and let's assume at the
> > application layer. If we manage to get past the security controls, that
> > means  we can write unrestrictedly any type of file to the remote network.
> > That also means that we get past their firewall, since the communication is
> > through HTTP (port 80). CDN nodes are deployed to multiple colocation
> > (thousands of nodes and thousands of servers across the world). The files
> > are cached deep in the network structures to thousands of servers.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Julius Kivimäki <
> > julius.kivimaki () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > OWASP is recognized worldwide, so is CEH and a bunch of other morons.
> > > That doesn't mean their publications are worth anything. Now tell me, why
> > > would arbitrary file upload on a CDN lead to code execution (Besides for
> > > HTML, which you have been unable to confirm)?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-03-13 18:16 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <
> > > lem.nikolas () googlemail com>:
> > >
> > > *You are wrong about accessing the files. What has not been confirmed is
> > > > remote code execution. We are working on it.*
> > > > *And please, OWASP is recognised worldwide... *
> > > >
> > > > *Files can be accessed through Google Take out with a little bit of
> > > > skills.*
> > > >
> > > > *https://www.google.com/settings/takeout
> > > > <https://www.google.com/settings/takeout> *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Julius Kivimäki <
> > > > julius.kivimaki () gmail com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Did you even read that article? (Not that OWASP has any sort of
> > > > > credibility anyways). From what I saw in your previous post you are both
> > > > > unable to execute the files or even access them and thus unable to
> > > > > manipulate the content-type the files are returned with, therefore there is
> > > > > no vulnerability (According to the article you linked.).
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, you should look for more cool vulnerabilities in amazons EC2, I'm
> > > > > sure you will find some "Unrestricted File Upload" holes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-03-13 16:18 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <
> > > > > lem.nikolas () googlemail com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is your answer.
> > > > > > https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Unrestricted_File_Upload
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Julius Kivimäki <
> > > > > > julius.kivimaki () gmail com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When did the ability to upload files of arbitrary types become a
> > > > > > > security issue? If the file doesn't get executed, it's really not a
> > > > > > > problem. (Besides from potentially breaking site layout standpoint.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2014-03-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <
> > > > > > > lem.nikolas () googlemail com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Google vulnerabilities uncovered...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Expert-Finds-File-Upload-Vulnerability-in-YouTube-Google-Denies-It-s-a-Security-Issue-431489.shtml
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > 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/