full-disclosure - Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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 linux-cve-announce 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]
Message-ID: <CALHzGp46=f9e8knG2HSrAcfWPJ0S=6rC1zsL0O34onrL7W-ENQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:16:58 -0400
From: Chris Thompson <christhom7851@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.nikolas@...glemail.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

Hi Nicholas,

Again, you hypothesize that you are getting a response from the database,
but you really don't know that. You have no idea when the code is doing
behind the endpoint.

upload.youtube.com is simple an endpoint that you are sending a request to
and getting a response from -

Can you upload a ZIP file for example and then get that same ZIP file from
another machine? If you can do that, then who can question your bug.

Again, i'm not trying to be a dick - just trying to help!

Cheers...



On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:

> My claim is now verified....
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://upload.youtube.com/?authuser=0&upload_id=
>> AEnB2UqVZlaog3GremriQEGDoUK3cdGGPu9MVIfyObgYajjo6i1--
>> uQicn6jhbwsdNrqSF4ApbUbhCcwzdwe4xf_XTbL_t5-aw&origin=
>> CiNodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3VwbG9hZC9ydXBpbxINdmlkZW8tdXBsb2Fkcw
>>
>> That information can be queried from the db, where the metadata are
>> saved. The files are being saved persistently , as per the above example.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. <
>> lem.nikolas@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://upload.youtube.com/?authuser=0&upload_id=AEnB2UqVZlaog3GremriQEGDoUK3cdGGPu9MVIfyObgYajjo6i1--uQicn6jhbwsdNrqSF4ApbUbhCcwzdwe4xf_XTbL_t5-aw&origin=CiNodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3VwbG9hZC9ydXBpbxINdmlkZW8tdXBsb2Fkcw
>>>
>>> That information can be queried from the db, where the metadata are
>>> saved. The files are being saved persistently , as per the above example.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Chris Thompson <christhom7851@...il.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Nikolas,
>>>>
>>>> Please do read (and understand) my entire email before responding - I
>>>> understand your frustration trying to get your message across but maybe
>>>> this will help.
>>>>
>>>> Please put aside professional pride for the time being - I know how it
>>>> feels to be passionate about something yet have others simply not
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>> Let me try and bring some sanity to the discussion and explain to you
>>>> why people maybe not agreeing with you.
>>>>
>>>> You (rightly so) highlighted what you believe to be an issue in a
>>>> Youtube whereby it appears (to you) than you can upload an arbitrary file.
>>>> If you can indeed do this as you suspect then your points are valid and you
>>>> "may" be able to cause various issues associated with it such as DOS etc -
>>>> especially if the uploaded files cannot or are not tracked.
>>>>
>>>> However...
>>>>
>>>> Consider than you are talking to an API and what you are getting back
>>>> (the JSON response) in your example is simply a response from the API to
>>>> say the file you uploaded has been received and saved.
>>>>
>>>> Now, as you no doubt know, when you upload a regular movie to YouTube,
>>>> once uploaded it goes away and does some post-processing, converting it to
>>>> flash for example. What's to say that there isn't some verification aspect
>>>> to this post-processing that checks if the file is intact a valid movie and
>>>> if not removes it.
>>>>
>>>> If you could for example demonstrate that the file was indeed
>>>> persistent, by being able to retrieve it for example then again, you would
>>>> have solid ground to claim an issue however your claims at this point are
>>>> based on an assumption.... Let me explain.
>>>>
>>>> 1. You have demonstrated than you can send "any" file to an API and the
>>>> API returned an acknowledgment of receiving (and saving) the file.
>>>>
>>>> 2. You / we don't know what Google do with files once they have been
>>>> received from the API - maybe they process them and validate them - we
>>>> simply don't know.
>>>>
>>>> 3. You have hypothesized that you can retrieve the file by manipulating
>>>> tokens etc and you may be right, but you have not demonstrated it as such.
>>>>
>>>> Because of this, you seem to have made a CLAIM that you can upload
>>>> arbitrary files to Google however SHOWN that you can simply send files to
>>>> an API and an API responds in a certain way.
>>>>
>>>> I am NOT saying you haven't found an issue, what I am saying is that
>>>> you need to demonstrate that the issue is real and thus can be abused. If
>>>> the Google service simply verifies all uploaded files once they are
>>>> uploaded and discards them if invalid, then you haven't really found
>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>> If you were to prove that you were able to retrieve this uploaded file
>>>> then how could anyone dispute your bug.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps....
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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/