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 18:17:07 +0000
From: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, antisnatchor <antisnatchor@...il.com>, 
 Julius Kivimäki <julius.kivimaki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

Google is a great service, but according to our proof of concepts (images,
poc's, codes) presented to Softpedia, and verified
by a couple of recognised experts including OWASP - that was a serious
vulnerability.

Now you can say whatever you like, and argue about it. You can argue about
the impact and whatsoever , but that's not the way to deal with security
issues.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> Google is a great service, but according to our proof of concepts (images,
> poc's, codes) presented to Softpedia, and verified
> by a couple of recognised experts including OWASP - that was a serious
> vulnerability.
>
> Now you can say whatever you like, and argue about it. You can argue about
> the impact and whatsoever , but that's not the way to deal with security
> issues.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Security vulnerabilities need to be published and reported. That's the
>> spirit.
>>
>> Attacking the researcher, won't make it go away.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Julius Kivimäki <
>> julius.kivimaki@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, seriously. Just stop.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-14 20:02 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Lemonias. <
>>> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>:
>>>
>>> You can't even find a cross site scripting on google.
>>>>
>>>> Find a vuln on Google seems like a dream to some script kiddies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:00 PM, 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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