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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:36:29 +0100
From: Nick Boyce <>
To: Full Disclosure List <>
Subject: [FD] Spammers Using storage[.]googleapis[.]com ?!!?

I notice that among the spam in my Gmail spam folder, there are a
number of "address-check" type messages (i.e. that just seek
confirmation my address exists), which attempt to get their response
by performing a scripted redirect via a web property belonging to
Google ...... and I tend to think "Huh? ... Surely Google wouldn't let
that happen ... is this redirect something that by some chance they
don't know about ?".

Every link in the spam has the following HREF:


The contents of 'redirectDOM80.html' just sets document.location.href
to somewhere else, passing on the ID string.

I won't include any of the above spam's boilerplate, but it's offering
to let me check my "public records" so that I can find out what other
people might know about me.

So does anybody know WTF ?   Is this some unfortunate side-effect of a
Google service that can't be avoided (I have no real idea what the
purpose of 'storage[.]googleapis[.]c' might be), or is this in fact
some dreadful snafu on the part of some Google sysadmin somewhere ?

There's some useless discussion of what sounds like the same thing, here:
but it's the very idea of there being an open redirect in a Google web
property that astonishes me.

These Google support tickets from 2020 suggest that anybody can store
anything they want as a second-level URI within s.g.c, and that
malicious artifacts are commonly stored there, and that Google is
blissfully ignorant of it until each individual artifact is reported,
and that even then Google doesn't care and does nothing:
..... but I can't quite believe it - surely they vet incoming traffic
?  Allowing the upload of arbitrary HTML to their own domain is ....
well .. [head explodes].

FWIW, people complain that Amazon AWS is also abused in the same way.

[No, I haven't bothered to let Google know directly - all of my
attempts to let them know about other minor issues with their services
have just resulted in a deafening silence - but I will try if folks
think I should.]


Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
Web Archives & RSS:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists