Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
From: antisnatchor <antisnatchor () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:55:20 +0000
LOL you're hopeless. Good luck with your business. Brave customers! Cheers antisnatchor Nicholas Lemonias. wrote:
People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things like reading a vulnerability report? Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was your boss I would fire you. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Nicholas Lemonias.* <lem.nikolas () googlemail com <mailto:lem.nikolas () googlemail com>> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC To: Mario Vilas <mvilas () gmail com <mailto:mvilas () gmail com>> People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things like reading a vulnerability report? Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was your boss I would fire you, with a good kick outta the door. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Mario Vilas <mvilas () gmail com <mailto:mvilas () gmail com>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas () googlemail com <mailto:lem.nikolas () googlemail com>> wrote: Jerome of Mcafee has made a very valid point on revisiting separation of duties in this security instance. Happy to see more professionals with some skills. Some others have also mentioned the feasibility for Denial of Service attacks. Remote code execution by Social Engineering is also a prominent scenario. Actually, people have been pointing out exactly the opposite. But if you insist on believing you can DoS an EC2 by uploading files, good luck to you then... If you can't tell that that is a vulnerability (probably coming from a bunch of CEH's), I feel sorry for those consultants. You're the only one throwing around certifications here. I can no longer tell if you're being serious or this is a massive prank. Nicholas. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas () googlemail com <mailto:lem.nikolas () googlemail com>> wrote: We are on a different level perhaps. We do certainly disagree on those points. I wouldn't hire you as a consultant, if you can't tell if that is a valid vulnerability.. Best Regards, Nicholas Lemonias. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Mario Vilas <mvilas () gmail com <mailto:mvilas () gmail com>> wrote: But do you have all the required EH certifications? Try this one from the Institute for Certified Application Security Specialists: http://www.asscert.com/ On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas () googlemail com <mailto:lem.nikolas () googlemail com>> wrote: Thanks Michal, We are just trying to improve Google's security and contribute to the research community after all. If you are still on EFNet give me a shout some time. We have done so and consulted to hundreds of clients including Microsoft, Nokia, Adobe and some of the world's biggest corporations. We are also strict supporters of the ACM code of conduct. Regards, Nicholas Lemonias. AISec On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas () googlemail com <mailto:lem.nikolas () googlemail com>> wrote: Hi Jerome, Thank you for agreeing on access control, and separation of duties. However successful exploitation permits arbitrary write() of any file of choice. I could release an exploit code in C Sharp or Python that permits multiple file uploads of any file/types, if the Google security team feels that this would be necessary. This is unpaid work, so we are not so keen on that job. || On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Jerome Athias <athiasjerome () gmail com <mailto:athiasjerome () gmail com>> wrote: Hi I concur that we are mainly discussing a terminology problem. In the context of a Penetration Test or WAPT, this is a Finding. Reporting this finding makes sense in this context. As a professional, you would have to explain if/how this finding is a Weakness*, a Violation (/Regulations, Compliance, Policies or Requirements[1]) * I would say Weakness + Exposure = Vulnerability. Vulnerability + Exploitability (PoC) = Confirmed Vulnerability that needs Business Impact and Risk Analysis So I would probably have reported this Finding as a Weakness (and not Vulnerability. See: OWASP, WASC-TC, CWE), explaining that it is not Best Practice (your OWASP link and Cheat Sheets), and even if mitigative/compensative security controls (Ref Orange Book), security controls like white listing (or at least black listing. see also ESAPI) should be 1) part of the [1]security requirements of a proper SDLC (Build security in) as per Defense-in-Depth security principles and 2) used and implemented correctly. NB: A simple Threat Model (i.e. list of CAPEC) would be a solid support to your report This would help to evaluate/measure the risk (e.g. CVSS). Helping the decision/actions around this risk PS: interestingly, in this case, I'm not sure that the Separation of Duties security principle was applied correctly by Google in term of Risk Acceptance (which could be another Finding) So in few words, be careful with the terminology. (don't always say vulnerability like the media say hacker, see RFC1392) Use a CWE ID (e.g. CWE-434, CWE-183, CWE-184 vs. CWE-616) My 2 bitcents Sorry if it is not edible :) Happy Hacking! /JA https://github.com/athiasjerome/XORCISM 2014-03-14 7:19 GMT+03:00 Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () coredump cx <mailto:lcamtuf () coredump cx>>: > Nicholas, > > I remember my early years in the infosec community - and sadly, so do > some of the more seasoned readers of this list :-) Back then, I > thought that the only thing that mattered is the ability to find bugs. > But after some 18 years in the industry, I now know that there's an > even more important and elusive skill. > > That skill boils down to having a robust mental model of what > constitutes a security flaw - and being able to explain your thinking > to others in a precise and internally consistent manner that convinces > others to act. We need this because the security of a system can't be > usefully described using abstract terms: even the academic definitions > ultimately boil down to saying "the system is secure if it doesn't do > the things we *really* don't want it to do". > > In this spirit, the term "vulnerability" is generally reserved for > behaviors that meet all of the following criteria: > > 1) The behavior must have negative consequences for at least one of > the legitimate stakeholders (users, service owners, etc), > > 2) The consequences must be widely seen as unexpected and unacceptable, > > 3) There must be a realistic chance of such a negative outcome, > > 4) The behavior must introduce substantial new risks that go beyond > the previously accepted trade-offs. > > If we don't have that, we usually don't have a case, no matter how > clever the bug is. > > Cheers (and happy hunting!), > /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/ -- "There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- "There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
-- Cheers Michele
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC, (continued)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Michal Zalewski (Mar 13)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Jerome Athias (Mar 13)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 14)
- Message not available
- Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC antisnatchor (Mar 14)
- Message not available
- Fwd: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC antisnatchor (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Julius Kivimäki (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Nicholas Lemonias. (Mar 14)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Thomas MacKenzie (Mar 14)