Enough with this thread.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. < lem.niko...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I am too buy researching satellite security. Been doing that since the > times of TESO, probably before you were born. > > Have a good night's sleep. > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez < > shad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I will, it's late here, but I'm enjoying the show way too much. xD >> >> Instead of discussing why don't you show a client side attack with that >> thing that you call a vulnerability and make every one shut up?, oh >> wait...because you can't! ;-) >> >> "A fail has thousand excuses, but success doesn't require any >> explaination". >> >> In this context a working client side exploit or a Server Shell proof is >> a success, any other thing is crap. >> >> Talking, complaining and showing certification don't work against a >> computer, a working exploit that gives you a shell does. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Sergio >> >> On Mar 14, 2014, "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Go to sleep. >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Nicholas Lemonias. <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> >>> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:16 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC >>> To: Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez <shad...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> Go to sleep.... >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Sergio 'shadown' Alvarez < >>> shad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Nicholas Lemonias, >>>> >>>> I don't use to get in these scrapy discussions, but yeah you are in a >>>> completetly different level if you compare yourself with Mario. >>>> You are definitely a Web app/metasploit-user guy and pick up a >>>> discussion with a binary and memory corruption ninja exploit writter like >>>> Mario. You should know your place and shut up. Period. >>>> >>>> Btw, if you dare discussing with a beast like lcamtuf, you are >>>> definitely out of your mind. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sergio. >>>> -- Sergio >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2014, "Nicholas Lemonias." <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> >>>> 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 <mvi...@gmail.com>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. < >>>>>> lem.niko...@googlemail.com> 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. < >>>>>>> lem.niko...@googlemail.com> 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 < >>>>>>>> athiasjer...@gmail.com> 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 <lcam...@coredump.cx>: >>>>>>>>> > 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/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/