Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

[Colette Chamberland <cjchamberland@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <mvilas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Try learning how to properly send emails before critizicing anyone, pal. ;)
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. 
>>> <lem.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Google vulnerabilities with PoC
>>> To: Mario Vilas <mvilas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 <mvilas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Lemonias. 
>>>>> <lem.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <mvilas@xxxxxxxxx> 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.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.nikolas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 
>>>>>>>>>> <athiasjerome@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <lcamtuf@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>>>> > 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/