Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
Not to mention imaginary. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. < [email protected]> wrote: > Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE > 100. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Nicholas Lemonias. > Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC > To: antisnatchor > > > Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE > 100. > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, antisnatchor wrote: > >> LOL you're hopeless. >> Good luck with your business. Brave customers! >> >> Cheers >> antisnatchor >> >> Nicholas Lemonias. 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. >> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM >> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC >> To: Mario Vilas >> >> >> 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 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 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
[Full-disclosure] Fwd: Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC
Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE 100. -- Forwarded message -- From: Nicholas Lemonias. Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC To: antisnatchor Says the script kiddie... Beg for some publicity. My customers are FTSE 100. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, antisnatchor wrote: > LOL you're hopeless. > Good luck with your business. Brave customers! > > Cheers > antisnatchor > > Nicholas Lemonias. 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. > Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC > To: Mario Vilas > > > 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 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 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
