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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:33:46 +0800
From: Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez <shadown@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>,
 full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Fwd:  Google vulnerabilities with PoC

I will, it's late here, but I'm enjoying the show way too much. xD

Instead of discussing why don't you show a client side attack with that thing that you call a vulnerability and make every one shut up?, oh wait...because you can't! ;-)

"A fail has thousand excuses, but success doesn't require any explaination".

In this context a working client side exploit or a Server Shell proof is a success, any other thing is crap.

Talking, complaining and showing certification don't work against a computer, a working exploit that gives you a shell does.

Cheers,
-- Sergio

On Mar 14, 2014, "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>Go to sleep.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
>Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC
>To: Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez <shadown@...il.com>
>
>
>Go to sleep....
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez
><shadown@...il.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nicholas Lemonias,
>>
>> I don't use to get in these scrapy discussions, but yeah you are in a
>> completetly different level if you compare yourself with Mario.
>> You are definitely a Web app/metasploit-user guy and pick up a
>discussion
>> with a binary and memory corruption ninja exploit writter like Mario.
>You
>> should know your place and shut up. Period.
>>
>> Btw, if you dare discussing with a beast like lcamtuf, you are
>definitely
>> out of your mind.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   Sergio.
>> -- Sergio
>>
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2014, "Nicholas Lemonias." <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>
>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