So in terms of permissions. What's the different between admin.youtube.comand a normal youtube user?
I assume that the admin has a full permission set. If that's the case, that means it is a valid vulnerability for the reason being that the integrity of the service is impacted. The youtube user circumvents the design and gets arbitrary write (w) permissions of any file-type. (The access control matrix is bypassed here) Since YouTube by design is not an FTP Service, and even Google drive is a paid service - Then yes it is a vulnerability. Why are you guys looking for impact elsewhere? The impact is to the integrity of the service - arbitrary write permissions. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Michal Zalewski <lcam...@coredump.cx>wrote: > > The only reasonable way to 'exploit' the bug is using youtube as a > > "personal storage" uploading non-video files to your own profile: so > what? > > That would require a way to retrieve the stored data, which - as I > understand - isn't possible here (although the report seems a bit > hard-to-parse). From what I recall, you can just upload a blob of data > and essentially see it disappear. > > We do have quite a few services where you can legitimately upload and > share nearly-arbitrary content, though. Google Drive is a good > example. > > /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/
