Message-ID: <CA+CewVBY3u2OiVePoZ4eiLT1ykQ0J8stOjOX_N7KY_+RHFeoUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:00 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: "Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez" <shadown@...il.com>,
 full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Fwd:  Google vulnerabilities with PoC

Enough with this thread.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> I am too buy researching satellite security. Been doing that since the
> times of TESO, probably before you were born.
>
> Have a good night's sleep.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez <
> shadown@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> 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