[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEDdjHeUXjaTyVizusCbEhLnGEs6_2sT39Otr2E1PmJzQvH01g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:09:25 +0000
From: Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
On 13 Mar 2014 14:30, "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
wrote:
>
> I suggest you to read on Content Delivery Network Architectures .
>
> YouTube.com populates and distributes stored files to multiple servers
> through a CDN (Content Delivery Architecture), where each video uses more
> than one machine (hosted by a cluster). Less populated video files are
> normally stored in various colocation sites. The YouTube architecture uses
> databases for storing metadata information of all uploaded files.
>
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Unrestricted_File_Upload
>
Being a CDN means it is very hard to find out where your file went.
I agree with was said on this thread by other people.
As an external penetration testing consultant, I would put this on a client
report as a low risk finding / possible vulnerability and recommend it to
be fixed.
As an internal vulnerability manager I would push the developers to fix it,
but I would give it a low priority and only real press then once all the
higher priority ones have been fixed.
However in the "real world" it is not a vulnerability, and don't expect
Google to pay you for it.
Regards
Pedro
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