| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:26:41 +0000 From: Thomas MacKenzie <thomas@...cuk.co.uk> To: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC You have a Googlemail account. How do we know you don't work for Google too... Inception type stuff going on here. > Nicholas Lemonias. <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> > 14 March 2014 18:17 > Google is a great service, but according to our proof of concepts > (images, poc's, codes) presented to Softpedia, and verified > by a couple of recognised experts including OWASP - that was a serious > vulnerability. > > Now you can say whatever you like, and argue about it. You can argue > about the impact and whatsoever , but that's not the way to deal with > security issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > Nicholas Lemonias. <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> > 14 March 2014 18:16 > Google is a great service, but according to our proof of concepts > (images, poc's, codes) presented to Softpedia, and verified > by a couple of recognised experts including OWASP - that was a serious > vulnerability. > > Now you can say whatever you like, and argue about it. You can argue > about the impact and whatsoever , but that's not the way to deal with > security issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > Nicholas Lemonias. <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> > 14 March 2014 18:13 > Security vulnerabilities need to be published and reported. That's the > spirit. > > Attacking the researcher, won't make it go away. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > Mario Vilas <mailto:mvilas@...il.com> > 14 March 2014 15:55 > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. > <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.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@...glemail.com <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.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@...il.com <mailto:mvilas@...il.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@...glemail.com > <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.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@...glemail.com > <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.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@...il.com > <mailto:athiasjerome@...il.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@...edump.cx > <mailto:lcamtuf@...edump.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/ > Nicholas Lemonias. <mailto:lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> > 14 March 2014 11:38 > 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. > > If you can't tell that that is a vulnerability (probably coming from a > bunch of CEH's), I feel sorry for those consultants. > > Nicholas. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Content of type "text/html" skipped Download attachment "compose-unknown-contact.jpg" of type "image/jpeg" (770 bytes) Download attachment "postbox-contact.jpg" of type "image/jpeg" (1295 bytes) _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists