Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:58:13 +0100
From: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

So if you can upload a file to Google Drive and trick someone to run it,
you'd call that a vulnerability too?

Hey, I've got another one. I can upload a video on Youtube telling people
to download and install a virus. I'll claim a prize too!

Keep at it man, you're hilarious! xDDD

/me goes grab more popcorn


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> Then that also means that firewalls and IPS systems are worthless. Why
> spend so much time protecting the network layers if a user can send any
> file of choice to a remote network through http...
>
> As for the uploaded files being persistent, there is evidence of that.
> For instance a remote admin could be tricked to execute some of
> the uploaded files (Social Engineering).
>
> So our report sent as part of Google's security program, should not be
> treated as a non-security issue.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:23 PM, R D <rd.seclists@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to try to spell it out clearly.
>>
>> You don't have unrestricted file upload[1]. Keep in mind you're trying to
>> abuse youtube, which is essentially a video file upload service. So the
>> fact that you can upload files is not surprising.
>> Now you're uploading non-video files. Cool. But not earth-shattering.
>> They are not accessible to anyone but you, as far as I can tell, and I
>> don't even think you can access the file contents on the remote server, but
>> please prove me wrong on both points.
>> You are still, as far as I can tell, bound by the per-file and
>> per-account quota on disk occupation, so you don't have a DoS by resource
>> exhaustion.
>> You can't force server-side file path, so you don't have RFI or DoS by
>> messing with the remote file system. You can't execute the files you
>> uploaded, so you don't have arbitrary code execution.
>>
>> But you are right about what your PoC does. You bypassed a security
>> control, you uploaded crap on youtube servers, and by that you exhausted
>> their resources by a fraction of the quota they allow you when signing up.
>> BTW, I don't think they keep invalid video files for an indefinite period
>> of time in a user account, but I might be wrong.
>>
>> The burden of proof is still on your side as to whether or not the bug
>> you found has any impact that was not already accepted by youtube allowing
>> registered users to upload whatever crap they see fit as long as it is
>> video. You failed to provide this proof, and please be sure the audience of
>> fulldisclosure is not "attacking the researcher" but working with you to
>> have a better understanding of the bug you found, even though you kinda
>> acted like a fool in this thread.
>>
>> Please keep on searching and finding vulns, please keep on publishing
>> them, and use this as a learning experience that not all bugs or control
>> bypasses are security vulnerabilities.
>>
>> --Rob'
>>
>> [1] As per OWASP (
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Unrestricted_File_Upload):
>>
>> >There are really two classes of problems here. The first is with the
>> file metadata, like the path and file name. These are generally provided by
>> the transport, such as HTTP multi-part encoding. This data may trick the
>> application into overwriting a critical file or storing the file in a bad
>> location. You must validate the metadata extremely carefully before using
>> it.
>>
>> Your POC doesn't demonstrate that.
>>
>> >The other class of problem is with the file size or content. The range
>> of problems here depends entirely on what the file is used for. See the
>> examples below for some ideas about how files might be misused. To protect
>> against this type of attack, you should analyze everything your application
>> does with files and think carefully about what processing and interpreters
>> are involved.
>>
>> Your POC kinda does that, but you didn't provide proof it's possible to
>> execute what you uploaded, either using social engineering or any other
>> method.
>>
>> Also, please don't say "verified by a couple of recognised experts
>> including OWASP" unless you actually spoke with someone @owasp and she
>> validated your findings.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
>> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have many PoC's including video clips. We may upload for the security
>>> world to see.
>>>
>>> However, this is not the way to treat security vulnerabilities.
>>> Attacking the researcher and bringing you friends to do aswell, won't
>>> mitigate the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.”

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