Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Facebook Attach EXE Vulnerability
From: xD 0x41 <secn3t () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:25:18 +1100

Hey great read,
    very true, there is way too little money in this area, but thats
what i am hoping to change, albeit pinch per punch and company by
company, slowly if more people turn to some ideals that you must
atleast know how to make the exploit and then how to debug it enough,
then to present it appropriately, full-disclosure or no disclosure, it
would work for me on how that first email breaks, if the company sees
me as someone who can offer them help, before i sell the poc and
instead, let blackhats chew away.... or,. they can start to learn that
security investment, is important, with some luck this wont take
I only think, seriously, if the item is NOT open source, and is a
multi million ENT erprise, yes that means you to RedHat RHEL, then the
item is up for scrutiny, since especially with FB it affects us all in
sme way, try to tell me that one of your family doesnt use the crap...
even if youdont... so, security would affect me/you/whoever, so why
not scrutinise what we are then left to use, and then, bugs come about
like this and others, and worse if you were to really worm it up then
you could on FB, and probably make tonnes of 'bots' from it, and
believe me thats where there is no shortage of spammers and such who
will use tis to make money.... Unfortunately many security
independants as theyre called, have yes indeed taken the one exploit.c
to another level and have now called themselfs specialists etc, HDM is
a prime example but, if you look at what he does, he is fuzzzing the
shit out of chrome, he is fuzzing the shit out of eveything we use, so
i have to applaud him, he does it silently though, wich is abit
annoying, he could have a better voice than i or you or probably
anyone on the list... i guess slide presentations do take theyre
i recall HDM as once active here... is a pity to see these people now
turn away from it, they are probably sick of trying to do what i am,
wich is not going to be easy but, im a boxer and i can handle punch
per punch basis.
Your writeup was good, alot of thinking has gone into it, and you are
right on all too many levels.

On 1 November 2011 11:54, mutiny <mutiny () kevinbeardsucks com> wrote:
The main thing is that the security division at facebook probably runs the
bug hunting page (as with everywhere else, which does make a decent bit of
sense).  And, if you spot bugs before they do, then that looks bad on them
(internally at the company and externally to the world).  So, it is not in
their interest to openly acknowledge your bugs, especially by paying you
cash money (not to mention, accounting is going to hate them if they see
bucks leaving the company for any reason, instead of coming in).  Not to
forget, it is in their interest to downplay your bug to the rest of the
company and the world (for those same reasons).

If you're doing research /for your own interest/, I recommend maintaining
full-disclosure.  Embrace the bazaar and burn down the cathedral.

If you're interested in making money, the smart route is through script
kiddies or whoever (but realize, you'll probably need to go ahead and write
a reliable exploit, to see any real cash).  Script kiddies (and agents of
various governments) often have tons of money to throw around to either
bolster their own image (and eventually get arrested) or make money from
your bug (especially if you're providing a reliable exploit).  Not to
mention, the actual damage that will be caused by the majority of these
"black hats" is nothing compared to what those companies are going to have
done, before they eventually crash.

You could also monetize your security research by taking an administration,
research or QA position.  But, too often, you're only ensuring that you'll
never be interested in any of the work that crosses your desk, ever again.

You'll laugh, if you ever end up taking a "real job" doing security
research, when you see heads getting butted between research teams and QA
teams.  Most security companies, for example, do not look at their own
products (imagine at HP, QA teams for various products would be screaming
their heads off at Tipping Point, if they went bug hunting in HP products -
often when it's publicly disclosed, those research teams will *still* stay
away from it, so the QA teams can tackle it and avoid the headache).

It often feels like the first person to market a firewall/IDS/IPS/etc..
pulled off the greatest exploitation, of a security vulnerability (and the
most common/reliable vulnerability, social engineering), of all time.

In short, what your father didn't tell you is: If you're trying to make
money, by doing *independent* security research, *shop around* for a buyer.
 (Describe the impact to the buyer, to receive a bid, before releasing
anything beyond generic details.  If they do not make a serious bid, take
your ball and go home.  If you have the right friends, or enough spare
money, involve a lawyer.)

And, most importantly, forget what any of these cunts try to tell you about
morals or ethics.  They're only pushing their point-of-view on you.  It's
best to, at least, consider all of the view points and make a decision on
what works for you/matters to you/etc...  None of these people, including
myself, can tell you what is morally or ethically wrong.  And, don't let
them heap shame on you, ever.

Releasing a remote root/system vulnerability (even if you include a reliable
exploit) to full-disclosure, conspiring with a company/individual to keep
secrets for X amount of time and selling an exploit to an anonymous bidder
should add no more weight to your shoulders than you already carry.  Just be
sure that *you* are happy with your decision.

 - sedition

On 10/31/2011 6:11 PM, xD 0x41 wrote:

Oh hey, 3k is great!
I saw that they just made it look abit cheap... no wrath but, it is
still a MULTI billion now, dollar company, so they shoukld be trying
to make SURE they can out bi ANY underground payers.. thats all i had
to question.
thanks for clearing it up, but sure, if theyre paying better now thats
cool, i should have said to, it is atleast a step in the right
direction :s  Still, they ARE*** a mutil frigging million dollar
company lol, so why wouldnt they give say, 1k minimum and make sure
they get people more than interested but even fuzzing for bugs wich
could potentially be in use already... this is something theyre not
covering atall really with 500bux.
It is tho, a start...
cheers for clearing up theyre rce payout, wow, so they maybe read
googles hall of fame and did it in accordance ? Maybe im wrong but....
this company, is not really the same thing as a google, and i guess a
bug on this site, would be actually worth 5million pcs to anyone
buying it... im just saying for them being so rish, they could do
better, and definately, the comapnies who offer nothing, should get
nothing back, simple, thats why blackhats sometimes are blackhats,
they got rooted around tryin to help some pig headed company who makes
millions yet will screw you around so badly, you do realise they tried
to reproduce the bug YOU made even, in order to _NOT_ pay you shit.
remeber that.
But then again, your in theyre pocket now, and really CANT do shit now
but say yes sir no sir two bags half fkn full sir.
am i rite.
cheers tho.
FB still sux hairy ones.

On 31 October 2011 16:44, Chris Evans<scarybeasts () gmail com>  wrote:

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM, xD 0x41<secn3t () gmail com>  wrote:

Bounty, another nice way to say *screw you but here anyhow...*
I am shocked they offer so little ($500 usd for remote-code injection) ,

Actually, it's $500 _or more_. I've lost the reference, but I think
they paid about $3000 for one case. Perhaps an RCE? Anyway, your
assumption is off.

one remote code injection bug for FB in a security environment wich is
not white, and may sell the bug for upto more than 5000,

You can't compare whitehat vs. blackhat programs. In the latter, you
cross moral and legal lines. Most people aren't willing to be such a

Perhaps you should reserve your wrath for companies that offer
$fuckall for good bugs? :)


because if a
RCE or other was there, something wich was 'seadable' or wormable,
then theyre bounty should be far higher, because that doesnt even
match up to what many 0days would sell for.
If someone had a rce for this and were to worm it, now thats a million
dollar botnet... that would be for those who could make from it
something and there is no shortage of spammers all to happy to take
control of 2million or more pcs...
Thats just one scenarion, in wich they could loose somuch data and
info, and in exchange offer 500bux.
What a slap in the face, FB should be ashamed of that price and bump
it up atleast for more serious stuff.
EXE attachment would be medium to high risk, they would be able to now
patch it, after first they did not acknowledge, but also did not have
the bounty also... only recently they have added this, with what, a
crappy 500 bux, multi million dollar enterprises, wich are saved by
these disclosures, and they are paying pittance.

Welcome to the Shame-Files FB, your a disgrace to the good people who
are helping you.
Nice bug, and, atleast you worked with them to reproduce, you realise
they would have gave you 0 $ if they had repoduced this, so again,
shame on them for only acknowledging this when they failed at
Theat 'bounty' page screams to me of the actual owners writing, and, I
bet he even probably hand wrote that, because he is a TIGHT FTSTED
pr**k , someone should put a /blackhat/ folder there, but then, its
not worth the time :) (no bug payout rofl...)
Notice also, D0S is not part of this, well then this would be funny if
one were to find a 0dayer in FB (ala apache d0s byterange style) ,
well dont bother disclosing it , just run it on a loop from theyre own
pages, afterall, whats the use to disclose such a shitty thing (yes
this is true it is shitty but, is all cases same...)
So summary is, Remote code injection or other, will get ya 500$ ,but,
if you goto an UG blackhat site, you might get 5k and up :P
xheers and again, thanks for being a good person and helping the
citizens of FB, really tho, you have, probably saved me even, 20
removals from my sisters PC :P
So, yes, I thank you and FD surely would thank you but, FB dont give a
damn :P
If they have anyone on this list who is also in theyre secteam well,
you really have a 'suck-ass' bounty, wich should be looked over,
because seriously, what worth would be it to give you anything, when
it is directly cheaper from wqebsites to buy it, and not have any
disclosure atall.
I guess this is something YOU need to ponder, not me, and im glad for
that, and Im glad again, i dont use the shitty service, and never
Enjoy, have a great day!

On 30 October 2011 05:12, Nathan Power<np () securitypentest com>  wrote:

That was the original program I was participating in.  Facebook has
to pay me a bounty for this bug.

Nathan Power

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ulises2k<ulises2k () gmail com>  wrote:

You know this?  ;)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 17:49, Nathan Power<np () securitypentest com>

I would also like to note this vulnerability was reported responsibly
regards to full disclosure.

Nathan Power
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Power<np () securitypentest com>

I was basically told that Facebook didn't see it as an issue and I
puzzled by that. Ends up the Facebook security team had issues
my work and that's why they initially disgarded it. After
publishing, the
Facebook security team re-examined the issue and by working with me
seem to have been able to reproduce the bug.

Nathan Power

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Pablo Ximenes<pablo () ximen es>

Not fixed yet. At least not yesterday when I checked.
Nathan, didn't Facebook ask for some time to fix this bug after
have acknowledged it?

Pablo Ximenes
Em 27/10/2011, às 19:29, Joshua Thomas<rappercrazzy () gmail com>

can't believe such was on FB  .... wahahaha !!! lol ....rofl ...

When was this discovered and fixed ?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Nathan
Power<np () securitypentest com>

1. Summary:
When using the Facebook 'Messages' tab, there is a feature to
a file.
Using this feature normally, the site won't allow a user to attach
executable file.
A bug was discovered to subvert this security mechanisms. Note,
do NOT have
to be friends with the user to send them a message with an

Read the rest of this advisory here:


Enjoy :)

Nathan Power
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/

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/

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 ]