full-disclosure - Re: 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]

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:24:32 +0000
From: antisnatchor <antisnatchor@...il.com>
To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@...il.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
 M Kirschbaum <pr0ix@...oo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

On top of that, Google spent millions of dollars to buy Chrome exploits,
sandbox bypasses
and webapp bugs. So, if this was a REAL bug with some REAL security
impact, I don't think Google wouldn't have paid.

They have a REAL budget for that, they are not like Yahoo that sends you
a t-shirt.

The security industry has become a big business for many, with bug
bounties, no more free bugs (and hugs),
100 pages of low/info risk findings bumped to high risk to scare the
customer, and so on.

At least do not pretend money when there is no security bug,
and in general don't be a pretender if you don't have a clue.

Cheers
antisnatchor

Mario Vilas wrote:
> I believe Zalewski has explained very well why it isn't a vulnerability,
> and you couldn't possibly be calling him hostile. :)
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:20 AM, M Kirschbaum <pr0ix@...oo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/

-- 
Cheers
Michele


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/