full-disclosure - Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+CewVC+2rRCpY-fE7zp97mqWQxbp0ELpURE1MMSmKFZs2ZPdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:24:02 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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 (admin.youtube.com) 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 8:00 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> 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@...edump.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/
>>
>
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/