| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1394878820.39032.YahooMailNeo@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:20:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: M Kirschbaum <pr0ix@...oo.co.uk>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
"ispcolohost@...il.com" <ispcolohost@...il.com>,
"brian@...anmwaters.net" <brian@...anmwaters.net>,
"lem.nikolas@...il.com" <lem.nikolas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
I have been watching this thread for a while and I think some people are being hostile here.
There is nothing to gain being on eithers side but for the sake of security. As a penetration tester, writer, and malware analyst with a long and rewarding career...it would be absurd to admit that this is not a vulnerability. If the content-type fields can be altered and the API accepts it that is undoubtedly a vulnerability, I believe that it shouldn't be there. It would be a shame to say that this is not a security problem. I have seen different responses on this thread but having seen the proof of concept images as well I just think that some of the people commenting here are just being hostile.
It doesn't take much for somebody in the field, to see clearly that Google does not want to pay. And I bet any amount of money that the bug bounty program is a way for filing potential threats by name and bank details.
Rgds,
M. Kirschbaum
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