Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:36:35 +0000

I have that very strip printed and on the wall in my office :)    You make several points, but the response that 
immediately comes to mind is that I actually see a difference between actively scanning content for structural/coding 
vulnerabilities, and entering data in a search box.  I don't know if there is any basis for this legally, but I feel 
that if you put a box up and I can search for something, then I can put whatever I want in that box.  You (the royal 
you) are basically soliciting people to put data in the box.   However, you are not asking anyone to spider your site 
or run scans against it.  

That said, my guess is that it would all come down to intent.  If I put ' or 1=1-- (like the site I had that some 
camper sniped) in, it's a pretty sure bet that I'm looking for SQL injection.  But I don't know if the search box 
"entitles" me to do that.  It certainly is interesting list fodder though...  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Sears [mailto:rdsears () mtu edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:30 PM
To: Thor (Hammer of God)
Cc: full-disclosure; noloader () gmail com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

How about the scenario in which one statically audit's some javascript sitting
on a site, to notice it does something in an unsafe manner, and can be used in
a XSS attack without actually making it happen?. There was no actual
'attacking' done, but there was still a vulnerability discovered. Is THAT
considered an illegal act? Is putting a '<3' into a web form/comment section
considered attacking it if you look at the source to see how the character
translated? What if you just wanted to make an ascii heart? My point is it's a
very blurry line, and there are a lot of scenarios where one may discover a
vulnerability without even having to do anything.

As for the source code disclosures, there was absolutely no 'attacking' done.
This was a huge oversight in the site devs, and they were giving that
information to anyone who requested it, plain and simple. What about the
Tumblr incident that happened a while ago? Just because they screwed up a
production script, they ended up leaking massive amounts of internal
infrastructure details, as well as private API keys, and other stuff that could be
used for nefarious means. Is it illegal to visit that page? I think not, as THEY
were putting the information out there (albeit by accident), but I as a user
have no way to know that.

I understand what you're saying about them not asking people to look for
bugs, but it IS the internet. Companies don't typically ask external people to
audit their executables either, but people do it for a number of reasons
(mainly education).

If they leave their site up, people will potentially poke at it. That's just the way
it is. If I have a vested interest in a company (be it monetary or simply
supporting it's cause), I personally want to see the site flourish, because I am
then a part of that site. I want to make sure that my personal information is
protected, and if I do find a bug somewhere, I report it. I recently found a XSS
in OpenDNS's landing page, and they were very appreciative, very
professional, and prompt to respond. This made me WANT to work with them
further to ensure that their infrastructure was hardened to other forms of
attack as well. I don't disclose these sorts of issues publicly, because I give the
developers a chance to fix it, and in my past experience most companies are
happy that I reported an issue, because I could have just as easily not said
anything. If it does come down to it though, I follow my own public disclosure
policy (http://talesofacoldadmin.com/disclosure.html) based off Rain Forest
Puppy's. It basically just asks for somewhat consistent lines of communication
after I disclose something. If the communication drops (or is non-existent),
then it's at my own discretion to disclose it in a public forum.

I don't HAVE to disclose anything to anyone, I CHOOSE to disclose it, but if
choosing to disclose something (even in private) means potential legal
troubles, then that takes away the motivation for me to disclose it in any
form. I'm still going to be finding bugs for my own educational purposes, but
I'll just stop disclosing them. That in itself starts to undermine the internet as a
whole, leading to the restriction of information exchange, which is appalling.

It IS technically illegal to do these sorts of tests without consent, but at what
point DOES it become a 'test'? There's some cases, granted, in which the
intention is clear (testing for blind SQL injections, etc) as they leave a huge
footprint, but there's no explicitly clear line in which it becomes illegal. Is
adding a ' to my name illegal? What if my 70+ year old grandmother did it by
accident? Could she be persecuted as well? You can't apply the law to only
some situations and not others.

I also point you to one of my favorite XKCD's => http://xkcd.com/327/

Is naming your kid something like that technically illegal? Then that starts
getting into free-speech issues, which are most certainly protected by the
constitution. If I want my name to be "Ann <! () #$%^&*()> Hero", and the site
doesn't explicitly tell me I can't do so, then how can I be expected to
reasonably know where their boundaries are? I don't see any terms of use for
using their website anywhere.

This is all just my opinion though, and sorry for the long message!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
To: "Ryan Sears" <rdsears () mtu edu>, noloader () gmail com
Cc: "full-disclosure" <full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:12:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

Well, I think there is a flip side to this, and that is the fact that no one is asking
these people to inspect their sites for vulnerabilities.   They are taking it upon
themselves to scan the sites actively looking for vulnerabilities for the sole
purpose of exposing them.  They may say that they are doing it "to ensure
that the vendors fix their problems" but it's not really any of their business to
do so.

I think someone would be hard pressed to justify (defend) their actions when
they basically "attack" a site that they don't own, without permission, with the
express intent of finding a vulnerability.  That's the difference between a
"test" and an "attack."   It doesn't matter how trivial their finds are, or what
the outcome of the scan is, it is the fact that no one asked, nor wants them to
do this.

Technically, what they are doing is in fact illegal - in the US anyway.   So there
is another aspect of this that deserves some discussion, I think.


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
[mailto:full-disclosure- bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:45 AM
To: noloader () gmail com
Cc: full-disclosure
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

Seriously. I gotta say I feel like people at Cenzic (and Mcafee for
that matter), if anyone should understand that a XSS should really only
be construed a 'criminal act' if it's indeed used to attack someone. If
a group is taking the time out of their day to find and disclose issues
to Mcafee, they should probably be thankful. What about finding a
vulnerability in Mcafee's virus scanner? Could that be construed as a
'criminal act' if they disclose it? Where do you draw the line?

Basically this sort of thing pushes the community into silence until
something truly criminal happens. I'm not saying give anyone massive
amounts of credit for publishing a few XSS bugs (because there's
millions of them out there), but don't label them as a criminal for trying to
help. That's just idiotic IMO.

If you run an enterprise level solution for antivirus AND web
vulnerability testing, the community understands that it's a process not
unlike any other.
There will be bugs, but it only demolishes the image of Mcafee to see
them handle it like this in particular. If they would have been
appreciative about it, and promptly fixed their website (or at the very
least maintained friendly
contact) this incident would have pretty much gone un-noticed.

Look at LastPass as an example.


They had someone poking at their site, who managed to find a XSS bug
using CRLF injections. They were appreciative of the find, 2.5 hrs
later the issue was fixed, and there was that blog post about exactly
what they were going to do about it. They took full responsibility for
the fact that THEIR coding was to blame, and basically said 'This is
what happened, and this is why it will probably never happen again'.
This spoke hugely to me (as I'm sure it did the rest of the community)
because it shows a company that's willing to admit it made a mistake,
as opposed to sitting on their haunches and blaming people for looking
for these sorts of bugs. Oh and not every customer of their service has
to pay massive licensing fees, as there's a free version as well. In my
mind at least this equates to a company that cares more about their
customers that don't pay a single dime, then a company who forces
people to pay massive amounts of coin for shaky automated scanning and
services. That's just the way I see it though.

Someone's gotta tell the emperor he has no clothes on.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader () gmail com>
To: "YGN Ethical Hacker Group" <lists () yehg net>
Cc: "full-disclosure" <full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 1:05:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:44 AM, YGN Ethical Hacker Group
<lists () yehg net>
According to xssed.com,  there are two remaining XSS issues:

https://kb.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=";; alert(1); //
https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=";; alert(1); //

You guys know our disclosed issues are very simple and can easily be
found through viewing HTML/JS source codes and simple Google Hacking


However,  it was criticized as 'illegal break-in' by Cenzic's CMO,
http://www.cenzic.com/company/management/khera/,  according to
World News editor - Ellen Messmer.  Thus, the next target is Cenzic
web site. Let's see how strong the Kung-Fu of Cenzic HailStorm
scanner is.
Too funny.... I wonder is Aaron Barr is consulting for Cenzic.



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/
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]