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  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]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:40:32 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki@...il.com>, 
 full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

Are you a Google employee...I wonder?

There is nothing else to be said regarding this. Our research for remote
code execution continues and will let you and Google  know once that is
confirmed; through the coordinated security program.

And please OWASP, is recognised worldwide.


Best Regards,
Nicholas Lemonias


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki@...il.com
> wrote:

> Look, you keep calling it a "vulnerability" with 0 evidence that it's even
> exploitable. Until you can prove otherwise this is like speculating the
> potential security repercussions of uploading files to EC2 (Which would
> probably have potential to be much more severe than what you're discussing
> here since javascript uploaded to ec2 could actually get executed by
> someones browser)
>
> You keep throwing around keywords like OWASP, OSI, "security best
> practices" as if they actually make a difference here. Truth is there's no
> reason to believe that what you have discovered here is exploitable. This
> mostly seems like a desperate attempt of getting money off of google and
> your name in some publication shitty enough to not do any fact checking
> (eg. softpedia) .
>
>
> 2014-03-13 21:48 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
> :
>
> Julius Kivimaki, your disbelief in OWASP, CEH, Journalists and anything
>> you may, or may not be qualified to question amazes. But everyone's opinion
>> is of course respected.
>>
>> I normally don't provide security lessons via e-mail and full-disclosure,
>> however you seem not to understand the security report fully and some core
>> principles. If you can't see what information security best practises, the
>> OSI/network model and self-automata propagation has anything to do with
>> arbitrary write permissions to a remote network leveraging from the
>> application layer, then me and you have nothing to talk about.
>>
>> As for the exploitability of this vulnerability, you will never know
>> until you try. And we have tried it , and seem to know better.
>>
>> I suggest you read the report again.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
>> Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC
>> To: Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki@...il.com>
>>
>>
>> Julius Kivimaki, your disbelief in OWASP, CEH, Journalists and anything
>> you may, or may not be qualified to question amazes. But everyone's opinion
>> is of course respected.
>>
>> I normally don't provide security lessons via e-mail and full-disclosure,
>> however you seem not to understand the security report fully and some core
>> principles. If you can't see what information security best practises, the
>> OSI/network model and self-automata propagation has anything to do with
>> arbitrary write permissions to a remote network leveraging from the
>> application layer, then me and you have nothing to talk about.
>>
>> As for the exploitability of this vulnerability, you will never know
>> until you try. And we have tried it , and seem to know better.
>>
>> I suggest you read the report again.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Julius Kivimäki <
>> julius.kivimaki@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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@...glemail.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@...glemail.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@...il.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@...glemail.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@...il.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@...glemail.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@...il.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@...glemail.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/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists