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 10:45:55 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, 
 Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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> 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> 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> 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>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>:
>>>> > 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/
>

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