Re: Google vulnerabilities with PoC

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 <[email protected]>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/