191–200 of 513 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah... Is it ok to do a public writeup on the same date the vuln was patched without an acknowledgement from the client? I would have scheduled this blog post at least a week later.
Once they changed the credentials and no longer share them, this particular issue should be gone, no?
> If you grab the list of admin users from /orgs/0/users, you can splice a new entry into it giving you full access to their Administrator dashboard. I'm not clear on this. Splice a new entry into what? The list of admin users? And then do what with it?
> Timeline (DD/MM) > 06/01 - Vulnerability Discovered > 09/01 - Write-up completed & Emailed to them > 10/01 - Vulnerability patched Note those dates are DAY-MONTH. At least they patched it within a single day. I find it funny that the author found a massive vulnerability but chose to wait a couple days to report it so they could finish a nice write-up. Reminds me of my experience with HackerOne: We had some particip…
And folks, this is why you sell your exploits to the highest bidder. Being "good" and giving companies free work is a HORRIBLE idea. They're never gonna pay, or even than you. If they're not willing to treat security researchers properly, I see no reason to return the favor. Remember security groups: if your company wont pay, there are others that will.
This is the most perfect blog post. ZERO fluff, straight to the point. Win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once they changed the credentials and no longer share them, this particular issue should be gone, no?
Maybe... But bashing the client on the day they patched because they haven't communicated is somewhat shaky. Bashing them a week later is totally cool in my books.
> Timeline (DD/MM) > 06/01 - Vulnerability Discovered > 09/01 - Write-up completed & Emailed to them > 10/01 - Vulnerability patched Note those dates are DAY-MONTH. At least they patched it within a single day. I find it funny that the author found a massive vulnerability but chose to wait a couple days to report it so they could finish a nice write-up. Reminds me of my experience with HackerOne: We had some particip…
The incentives in infosec are weird.
Much smarter folks than me have been saying it for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption given that the article talks specifically about American fast food chains.
I guess three clues: * They were just trolling Firebase accounts for anything left open, and the first hit was a company that works with a bunch of American fast food chains. That doesn't require OP to live in the US. * They specified "America's fast food chains"; someone living in the US probably wouldn't qualify it with "America's". * They used a $DAY/$MONTH date format, which is uncommon in the US.
> Timeline (DD/MM) > 06/01 - Vulnerability Discovered > 09/01 - Write-up completed & Emailed to them > 10/01 - Vulnerability patched Note those dates are DAY-MONTH. At least they patched it within a single day. I find it funny that the author found a massive vulnerability but chose to wait a couple days to report it so they could finish a nice write-up. Reminds me of my experience with HackerOne: We had some particip…
Considering that there is “more than one way to skin a cat”, it is not a given that vulnerabilities further along the chain will be resolved by closing the initial vector.
When a chain of vulnerabilities is reported it might become clear that not only does the initial attack vector need to be closed, but additional work needs to be done in other areas because there are other ways to reach that code which was called further along the attack chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All roads lead back to RDBMS, it's amazing how this piece of theory just works.
In my experience, the roads lead back to SQL. It deviates from the relational model. It may even be that SQL was successful because it deviated from the relational model. Perhaps the theory doesn't just work?
Can you give an example of a query that cannot be expressed well in relational algebra, but can be in SQL because it deviates from that?