Omg please for the love of all things human STFU!!! Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:43 AM, "Nicholas Lemonias." > <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > If you wish to talk seriously about the problem, please send me an email > privately. And we can talk about what we have found so far, and perhaps > present some more proof of concepts for this on going research. This is > between the researcher and Google. > > People who do not have the facts have been, trying to attack the arguer, on > the basis of their personal beliefs. We are not speaking from experience, but > based on our findings which includes PoC media, images, codes - and based on > academic literature and recognised practise. Please bear in mind that a lot > of research is conducted in academia (those old papers you say) before > finally released to the commercial markets. > > Regards, > > Nicholas Lemonias > Information Security Expert > Advanced Information Security Corp. > > >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Mario Vilas <mvi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Try learning how to properly send emails before critizicing anyone, pal. ;) >> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. >>> <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> >>> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC >>> To: Mario Vilas <mvi...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> 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 <mvi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. >>>>> <lem.niko...@googlemail.com> 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. >>>>>> <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/ >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “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.” >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “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/
