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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:44:17 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Fwd:  Google vulnerabilities with PoC

People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things
like reading a vulnerability report?

Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was
your boss I would fire you.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC
To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>


People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things
like reading a vulnerability report?

Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was
your boss I would fire you, with a good kick outta the door.






On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jerome of Mcafee has made a very valid point on revisiting  separation of
>> duties in this security instance.
>>
>> Happy to see more professionals with some skills.  Some others have also
>> mentioned the feasibility for Denial of Service attacks. Remote code
>> execution by Social Engineering is also a prominent scenario.
>>
>
> Actually, people have been pointing out exactly the opposite. But if you
> insist on believing you can DoS an EC2 by uploading files, good luck to you
> then...
>
>
>>
>> If you can't tell that that is a vulnerability (probably coming from a
>> bunch of CEH's), I feel sorry for those consultants.
>>
>
> You're the only one throwing around certifications here. I can no longer
> tell if you're being serious or this is a massive prank.
>
>
>>
>> Nicholas.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "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."
>

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