Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
From: Thomas Williams <thomas () trwilliams me uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:43:37 +0000
I signed onto this mailing list as an interested person in security - not to see everyone moan. We will all have differences in opinion and we should all respect that. This goes for everyone and I feel I speak for a lot of people here, everyone needs to grow up, and shut up. Email scanned and verified safe. On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:43, Mario Vilas <mvilas () gmail com> wrote:
Sockpuppet much? On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:35 PM, M Kirschbaum <pr0ix () yahoo co uk> wrote: Gynvael Coldwind, What Alfred has reiterated is that this is a security vulnerability irrelevantly of whether it qualifies for credit. It is an unusual one, but still a security vulnerability. Anyone who says otherwise is blind, has little or no experience in hands on security, or either has a different agenda. The obvious here is that Google dismissed it as a non-security issue which I find rather sad and somewhat ridiculous. Even if we asked Andrew Tanenbaum about ,I suspect his answers wouldn't be much different. Rgds, On Saturday, 15 March 2014, 12:45, Gynvael Coldwind <gynvael () coldwind pl> wrote: Hey, I think the discussion digressed a little from the topic. Let's try to steer it back on it. What would make this a security vulnerability is one of the three standard outcomes: - information leak - i.e. leaking sensitive information that you normally do not have access to - remote code execution - in this case it would be: -- XSS - i.e. executing attacker provided JS/etc code in another user's browser, in the context *of a sensitive, non-sandboxed* domain (e.g. youtube.com) -- server-side code execution - i.e. executing attacker provided code on the youtube servers - denial of service - I think we all agree this bug doesn't increase the chance of a DoS; since you upload files that fail to be processed (so the CPU-consuming re-encoding is never run) I would argue that this decreases the chance of DoS if anything Which leaves us with the aforementioned RCE. I think we all agree that if Mr. Lemonias presents a PoC that uses the functionality he discovered to, either: (A) display a standard XSS alert(document.domain) in a sensitive domain (i.e. *.youtube.com or *.google.com, etc) for a different (test) user OR (B) execute code to fetch the standard /etc/passwd file from the youtube server and send it to him, then we will be convinced that this is vulnerability and will be satisfied by the presented proof. I think that further discussion without this proof is not leading anywhere. One more note - in the discussion I noticed some arguments were tried to be justified or backed by saying "I am this this and that, and have this many years of experience", e.g. (the first one I could find): "have worked for Lumension as a security consultant for more than a decade." Please note, that neither experience, nor job title, proves exploitability of a *potential* bug. Working exploits do. That's it from me. I'm looking forward to seeing the RCE exploits (be it client or server side). Kind regards, Gynvael Coldwind -- “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/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
_______________________________________________ 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: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC, (continued)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC M Kirschbaum (Mar 15)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Michal Zalewski (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC M Kirschbaum (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC antisnatchor (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC M Kirschbaum (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Gynvael Coldwind (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 15)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC M Kirschbaum (Mar 16)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 15)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Thomas Williams (Mar 16)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 15)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Stefan Jon Silverman (Mar 15)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC The Doctor (Mar 18)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Leutnant Steiner (Mar 19)
- Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Mario Vilas (Mar 15)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC M Kirschbaum (Mar 15)
- Re: [SPAM] [Bayesian][bayesTestMode] Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Exibar (Mar 16)
- Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC Michal Zalewski (Mar 15)