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 18:07:28 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, antisnatchor <antisnatchor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

Quite funnily, most erratic comments originate from a @gmail.com host. Does
that mean that Google and Co are attacking the researcher ?


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> Quite funnily, most erratic comments originate from a @gmail.com host.
> Does that mean that Google and Co are attacking the researcher ?
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@...il.com>wrote:
>
>> No, you're saying something's a vulnerability without showing any
>> indication of how it can be abused.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Nicholas Lemonias.
>> <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>> > The full-disclosure mailing list has really changed. It's full of lamers
>> > nowdays aiming high.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Nicholas Lemonias.
>> > <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE
>> >> 100.
>> >>
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
>> >> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
>> >> To: antisnatchor <antisnatchor@...il.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE
>> >> 100.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, antisnatchor <antisnatchor@...il.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> LOL you're hopeless.
>> >>> Good luck with your business. Brave customers!
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> antisnatchor
>> >>>
>> >>> Nicholas Lemonias. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> >>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> >>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Michele
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>>
>
>

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