People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things like reading a vulnerability report?
Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was your boss I would fire you. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicholas Lemonias. <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC To: Mario Vilas <[email protected]> People can read the report if they like. Can't you even do basic things like reading a vulnerability report? Can't you see that the advisory is about writing arbitrary files. If I was your boss I would fire you, with a good kick outta the door. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Mario Vilas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jerome of Mcafee has made a very valid point on revisiting separation of >> duties in this security instance. >> >> Happy to see more professionals with some skills. Some others have also >> mentioned the feasibility for Denial of Service attacks. Remote code >> execution by Social Engineering is also a prominent scenario. >> > > Actually, people have been pointing out exactly the opposite. But if you > insist on believing you can DoS an EC2 by uploading files, good luck to you > then... > > >> >> If you can't tell that that is a vulnerability (probably coming from a >> bunch of CEH's), I feel sorry for those consultants. >> > > You're the only one throwing around certifications here. I can no longer > tell if you're being serious or this is a massive prank. > > >> >> Nicholas. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We are on a different level perhaps. We do certainly disagree on those >>> points. >>> I wouldn't hire you as a consultant, if you can't tell if that is a >>> valid vulnerability.. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Nicholas Lemonias. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Mario Vilas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> But do you have all the required EH certifications? Try this one from >>>> the Institute for >>>> Certified Application Security Specialists: http://www.asscert.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Michal, >>>>> >>>>> We are just trying to improve Google's security and contribute to the >>>>> research community after all. If you are still on EFNet give me a shout >>>>> some time. >>>>> >>>>> We have done so and consulted to hundreds of clients including >>>>> Microsoft, Nokia, Adobe and some of the world's biggest corporations. We >>>>> are also strict supporters of the ACM code of conduct. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Nicholas Lemonias. >>>>> AISec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas Lemonias. < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jerome, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for agreeing on access control, and separation of duties. >>>>>> >>>>>> However successful exploitation permits arbitrary write() of any file >>>>>> of choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> I could release an exploit code in C Sharp or Python that permits >>>>>> multiple file uploads of any file/types, if the Google security team >>>>>> feels >>>>>> that this would be necessary. This is unpaid work, so we are not so keen >>>>>> on >>>>>> that job. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Jerome Athias < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I concur that we are mainly discussing a terminology problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the context of a Penetration Test or WAPT, this is a Finding. >>>>>>> Reporting this finding makes sense in this context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a professional, you would have to explain if/how this finding is a >>>>>>> Weakness*, a Violation (/Regulations, Compliance, Policies or >>>>>>> Requirements[1]) >>>>>>> * I would say Weakness + Exposure = Vulnerability. Vulnerability + >>>>>>> Exploitability (PoC) = Confirmed Vulnerability that needs Business >>>>>>> Impact and Risk Analysis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I would probably have reported this Finding as a Weakness (and not >>>>>>> Vulnerability. See: OWASP, WASC-TC, CWE), explaining that it is not >>>>>>> Best Practice (your OWASP link and Cheat Sheets), and even if >>>>>>> mitigative/compensative security controls (Ref Orange Book), security >>>>>>> controls like white listing (or at least black listing. see also >>>>>>> ESAPI) should be 1) part of the [1]security requirements of a proper >>>>>>> SDLC (Build security in) as per Defense-in-Depth security principles >>>>>>> and 2) used and implemented correctly. >>>>>>> NB: A simple Threat Model (i.e. list of CAPEC) would be a solid >>>>>>> support to your report >>>>>>> This would help to evaluate/measure the risk (e.g. CVSS). >>>>>>> Helping the decision/actions around this risk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS: interestingly, in this case, I'm not sure that the Separation of >>>>>>> Duties security principle was applied correctly by Google in term of >>>>>>> Risk Acceptance (which could be another Finding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So in few words, be careful with the terminology. (don't always say >>>>>>> vulnerability like the media say hacker, see RFC1392) Use a CWE ID >>>>>>> (e.g. CWE-434, CWE-183, CWE-184 vs. CWE-616) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My 2 bitcents >>>>>>> Sorry if it is not edible :) >>>>>>> Happy Hacking! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /JA >>>>>>> https://github.com/athiasjerome/XORCISM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-03-14 7:19 GMT+03:00 Michal Zalewski <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> > Nicholas, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I remember my early years in the infosec community - and sadly, so >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> > some of the more seasoned readers of this list :-) Back then, I >>>>>>> > thought that the only thing that mattered is the ability to find >>>>>>> bugs. >>>>>>> > But after some 18 years in the industry, I now know that there's an >>>>>>> > even more important and elusive skill. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > That skill boils down to having a robust mental model of what >>>>>>> > constitutes a security flaw - and being able to explain your >>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>> > to others in a precise and internally consistent manner that >>>>>>> convinces >>>>>>> > others to act. We need this because the security of a system can't >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> > usefully described using abstract terms: even the academic >>>>>>> definitions >>>>>>> > ultimately boil down to saying "the system is secure if it doesn't >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> > the things we *really* don't want it to do". >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > In this spirit, the term "vulnerability" is generally reserved for >>>>>>> > behaviors that meet all of the following criteria: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 1) The behavior must have negative consequences for at least one of >>>>>>> > the legitimate stakeholders (users, service owners, etc), >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 2) The consequences must be widely seen as unexpected and >>>>>>> unacceptable, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 3) There must be a realistic chance of such a negative outcome, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 4) The behavior must introduce substantial new risks that go beyond >>>>>>> > the previously accepted trade-offs. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > If we don't have that, we usually don't have a case, no matter how >>>>>>> > clever the bug is. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Cheers (and happy hunting!), >>>>>>> > /mz >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > 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." >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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." >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
