Quantcast

What works and what is paused · Email is limited to account activation and password resets.

Jump to content


Photo

A security Facepalm.


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2010 - 03:42 AM

Source

Many of the companies that were attacked used the same source-code management system made by Perforce, a California-based company that makes products used by many large companies. McAfee’s white paper focuses on the insecurities in the Perforce system and provides suggestions for securing it, but McAfee said it will look at other source-code management systems in the future. The paper doesn’t indicate which companies were using Perforce or had vulnerable configurations installed.

As previously reported, the attackers gained initial access by conducting a spear-phishing attack against specific targets within the company. The targets received an e-mail or instant message that appeared to come from someone they knew and trusted. The communication contained a link to a website hosted in Taiwan that downloaded and executed a malicious JavaScript, with a zero-day exploit that attacked a vulnerability in the user’s Internet Explorer browser.

A binary disguised as a JPEG file then downloaded to the user’s system and opened a backdoor onto the computer and set up a connection to the attackers’ command-and-control servers, also hosted in Taiwan.

From that initial access point, the attackers obtained access to the source-code management system or burrowed deeper into the corporate network to gain a persistent hold.


As a security professional I wish to see everyone working for Google's Security department fired. Now.

This attack was a very very retarded attack, and against a competent security setup (Or one at all). This would not have done anything. The attack only exists on Internet Explorer 6, and only on systems prior to Windows Vista (or vista with UAC disabled). This means that the company was retarded enough to use outdated software, and hadn't bothered to upgrade still. Why was Google using Internet Explorer 6, if they are the creators of Google chrome? I'm pretty use they use Google Chrome, and thus the attack was because of an Open Source Software failure (Probably just read the code and was like. Hahahaha this exploit isn't patched).

The next point of failure comes from the company employees themselves. Receiving emails and clicking links to Twain is the biggest fail you could ever accomplish. Its extremely easy to not fall for these hacks. And a single session of security training could have taught all of their employees to not click a email that has a link to Twain. Sadly this attack is the most popular, and it relies on the user to be utterly retarded.

The next step comes from their failure at securing their servers in any method at all. Any were source code is stored, security should be at its highest. There is no reason for a source code server to be completely unsecured, and unencrypted. It makes me cry. Whenever your a company that is as big as Google, even your janitors computer should be 100% protected with the best practices.

In short. Google and several other companies got owned because of their own incompetence. Adobe even got hacked by an exploit in their Adobe Reader program. Its sad to see how many incompetent baboons are in charge of security.


Look at the vulnerability in software employed by thousands of companies.

Perforce runs its software as “system” under Windows, giving malware the ability to inject itself into system-level processes and providing an attacker access to all administrative functions on the system. Although the Perforce documentation for UNIX tells the reader not to run the server service as root, it doesn’t suggest making the same alteration to the Windows service. As a result, the default installation on Windows runs as a local system, or as root.
By default, unauthenticated anonymous users are allowed to create users in Perforce, and no user password is required to create a user.
All information, including source code, that is communicated between the client system and the Perforce server is unencrypted and therefore easily sniffed and compromised by someone on the network.
The Perforce tools use weak authentication, allowing any user to replay a request with a cookie value that is easy to guess and obtain authenticated access to the system to perform “powerful operations” on the Perforce server.
The Perforce client and server store all files in cleartext, allowing easy compromise of all the code in the local cache or on the server.


/facepalm X4908209847290734782973904872


Discuss security failures

Advertisement

    #2 Bryan

    Bryan
    • 4107 posts

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 10:39 AM

    Yep guys, they must be incompetent. Because I mean, they're not all fucking geniuses or anything. I'm sure some kid fixing computers for old people that doesn't know the difference between threads and a core is more than qualified to call Google stupid.

    #3 Warriors

    Warriors
    • 985 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 12:49 PM

    You know..all those google employees, I know I was one, but on a lesser scale, are idiots...They have numerous degrees for just an entry level position but they are always fucking up at work..There have been a bunch of issues with those programmers, I am quite suprised that the site runs so well.

    But its us who go straight back to these companies that fail to protect..maybe someone should start a new company?

    #4 Bryan

    Bryan
    • 4107 posts

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 12:54 PM

    You know..all those google employees, I know I was one, but on a lesser scale, are idiots...They have numerous degrees for just an entry level position but they are always fucking up at work..There have been a bunch of issues with those programmers, I am quite suprised that the site runs so well.

    But its us who go straight back to these companies that fail to protect..maybe someone should start a new company?

    I'm sorry, anyone here who claims that they work for Google is lying. They're always fucking up? The CEO's have had the company for 14 years, and their net worth is 17.5 billion.

    They must be idiots.

    #5 Warriors

    Warriors
    • 985 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:14 PM

    I'm sorry, anyone here who claims that they work for Google is lying. They're always fucking up? The CEO's have had the company for 14 years, and their net worth is 17.5 billion.

    They must be idiots.


    Really? I never said my position was important at google..I even said it wasn't. They had the company..hell companies last long time if you can play the game, that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes.

    BTW, Sergey and Larry were bright individuals who made it work by starting off using keyword advertising..hell they still use it today and make a ton..

    Posted Image

    Edited by Warriors, 17 May 2010 - 01:19 PM.


    #6 Bryan

    Bryan
    • 4107 posts

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:35 PM

    Really? I never said my position was important at google..I even said it wasn't. They had the company..hell companies last long time if you can play the game, that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes.

    BTW, Sergey and Larry were bright individuals who made it work by starting off using keyword advertising..hell they still use it today and make a ton..

    Posted Image

    Really I never said commented on your importance of your job at google, I actually remember saying you were lying. For what were you doing for Google? How did you get the job?

    Google makes nearly 100% of their money from advertising. I mean, we all use their products. Picasa, Youtube, Chrome, Android, GMail, Wave, Voice, etc. They're all free. They be billionaires.

    I agree that there are vulnerabilities, but it's hardly fair to call them idiots, or baboons.

    "There are some serious vulnerabilities here that do need to be addressed, but there’s also a fair bit of overhyping and impractical suggestions. It’s hard to imagine an efficient workplace where developers had to submit a two-factor authentication with a one time password every time they accessed the SCM, yet also did not keep a local copy of the source code they were working on."

    #7 Warriors

    Warriors
    • 985 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:40 PM

    I simply did quality control..never said I was lying..true that the founders and Google itself is a great company, but the people working there, not the heads but the regular people were horrible..

    #8 ZaCkDiZzLe

    ZaCkDiZzLe
    • 126 posts

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 02:24 PM

    They work for a company worth 17.5 bil yet they obviously aren't training their technicians in security. If you were in charge of a company that size, wouldn't you make sure that everyone who had access to a computer was trained to spot attempted hacks? I mean I know next to nothing about security but it seems that if you had access to googles servers you would have to be trained on keeping others from accessing them.

    #9 iargue

    iargue
    • 10048 posts


    Users Awards

    Posted 17 May 2010 - 10:36 PM

    Yep guys, they must be incompetent. Because I mean, they're not all fucking geniuses or anything. I'm sure some kid fixing computers for old people that doesn't know the difference between threads and a core is more than qualified to call Google stupid.



    Ignorant Buffoon. I'm a certified Security Professional, and am currently interning as a security consultant. Obviously I do know more then them, because everything described in this article was taught to me in -fucking training-. So if I know how to protect from this, and they do not, what does this say about them?

    Feel free to insult me, because I already would have done all of that if I was their security consultant. I would have done a lot better job then that, because the security practices that needed to be employed were -elementary- at best.

    Are you a certified security professional? No.
    Do you know what I do for a living? No.
    Do you know how proficient their technicians are? No.
    Did Google just get owned by a email scam? Yes.
    Have I ever been owned by a email scam? No.
    Does this mean I'm more intelligent about security then the idiot that click the link? Yes.
    Is it best practice to not run as admin? Yes
    Did Google run as admin? Yes.
    Is it best practice to upgrade for security reasons? Yes.
    Did Google upgrade? No.
    Is it best practice to enable logging? Yes.
    Did Google enable logging? No.
    Is it best practice to use encryption on your network? Yes.
    Did Google use encryption? No.
    Is it best practice to secure servers? Yes
    Did Google secure their severs? No.

    Conclusion. Google failed at security.

    This isn't a debate. You cannot claim that Google did a good job protecting their computers. My training taught me these as the very basics. And yet Google failed to even handle that.

    I actually have more certifications then the head of Google's Security, which apparently means -nothing- to you, because you believe that I am not capable of learning anything, which just shows your arrogance.

    #10 StefanKai

    StefanKai
    • 375 posts

    Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:05 AM

    Really? I never said my position was important at google..I even said it wasn't. They had the company..hell companies last long time if you can play the game, that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes.

    BTW, Sergey and Larry were bright individuals who made it work by starting off using keyword advertising..hell they still use it today and make a ton..

    Posted Image


    lol wut?

    Most google employees are morons? Okay.

    #11 Bryan

    Bryan
    • 4107 posts

    Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:18 AM

    Ignorant Buffoon. I'm a certified Security Professional, and am currently interning as a security consultant. Obviously I do know more then them, because everything described in this article was taught to me in -fucking training-. So if I know how to protect from this, and they do not, what does this say about them?

    Feel free to insult me, because I already would have done all of that if I was their security consultant. I would have done a lot better job then that, because the security practices that needed to be employed were -elementary- at best.

    Are you a certified security professional? No.
    Do you know what I do for a living? No.
    Do you know how proficient their technicians are? No.
    Did Google just get owned by a email scam? Yes.
    Have I ever been owned by a email scam? No.
    Does this mean I'm more intelligent about security then the idiot that click the link? Yes.
    Is it best practice to not run as admin? Yes
    Did Google run as admin? Yes.
    Is it best practice to upgrade for security reasons? Yes.
    Did Google upgrade? No.
    Is it best practice to enable logging? Yes.
    Did Google enable logging? No.
    Is it best practice to use encryption on your network? Yes.
    Did Google use encryption? No.
    Is it best practice to secure servers? Yes
    Did Google secure their severs? No.

    Conclusion. Google failed at security.

    This isn't a debate. You cannot claim that Google did a good job protecting their computers. My training taught me these as the very basics. And yet Google failed to even handle that.

    I actually have more certifications then the head of Google's Security, which apparently means -nothing- to you, because you believe that I am not capable of learning anything, which just shows your arrogance.

    Kid you're fucking retarded. I never argued they did a good job protecting their systems. I said it's wrong of you to call them an idiot, especially because all you do is fix computers in Florida.

    You don't know shit about what they did because you weren't there. All I can say is, you did a good job of proving to me how much of an idiot you are.

    Also, about you having more certifications than the head of Google's security. There's probably a reason that you're still stuck in Florida and he's working for one of the top 5 companies. Maybe your certifications don't mean as much as you think?

    I'm not ignorant, you argue shit I never claimed to say.

    Get off my nuts kid.


    1 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users