Skip to main content

Bounty leftover Part #2 (target Google)

In my previous blog post I mentioned a following post about some vulnerability I found in
As said, motivated from my little success that I got finding a vulnerability in some obsolete authorization service in Facebook I thought I might have the same luck with Google :)
Well it turned out this was the case...
Giving a look at the Older Protocols in the Google Accounts Authentication and Authorization page something that immediately caught my attention was the AuthSub (deprecated) flow.
Now, I am not going to describe here the flow, it is enough saying that it is a pre-OAuth flow that Google used to give some access delegation using some sort of tokens...
The problem was related with the scope parameter in It accepted concatenation of string after a valid scope. 

So far so good.
The next natural step would have been to use the to get the scope back with the given stored javascript.
At a first sigh this looked like unexploitable since as per doc this would require a request header, namely 

curl -H "Authorization:AuthSub token="1/XD7eCi3_
2mXSfDHXLtImg0Oc1nDoZCFKL4dLrqzVYVk"" -H "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"

The reality though was that it existed also another version of the service that accepts request parameter (and the cherry on top was that this service also runs in that is the most rewarded according to


curl -v

> User-Agent: curl/7.30.0

> Host:

> Accept: */*


< HTTP/1.1 200 OK

< Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

< X-Frame-Options: DENY

< Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:10:51 GMT

< Expires: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:10:51 GMT

< Cache-Control: private, max-age=0

< X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

< X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block

< Content-Length: 106

< * Server GSE is not blacklisted

< Server: GSE

< Alternate-Protocol: 443:quic





Some observations:

  • the scope is not sanitized (so he can lead to a XSS ) but
  • no sniff is present
  • Content Type is text/plain
To conclude this is the attack scenario

Once reported Google fixed it pretty soon and also got a reward for it... Not bad for a left over :p

Thanks Google security.


Popular posts from this blog

Billion Laugh Attack in

tl;dr suffered from a Billion Laugh Attack vulnerability that made the containerized environment to crash with a single invocation.
Introduction Few months ago I applied for a talk at a security conference titled Soyouwanna be a Bug Bounty Hunter but it was rejected :(. The reason behind it is that I have been on/off in the bug bounty business for a while as you can see here:
Funny. Found in a forgotten drawer from the time I was a bug hunter :p — Antonio Sanso (@asanso) November 30, 2018 and I would have liked to share some of the things I have learned during these years (not necessary technical advises only). You can find a couple of these advises here:

Rule #1 of any bug hunter is to have a good RSS feed list
and here

The rule #2 of any bug hunter is to DO NOT be to fussy with 'food' specifically with "left over"
Today's rule is: The rule #3 of any bug hunter is DO LOOK at the old stuff


Bug bounty left over (and rant) Part III (Google and Twitter)

tl;dr in this blog post I am going to talk about some bug bounty left over with a little rant.

Here you can find bug bounty left over part I and II
Here you can find bug bounty rant part I and II
Introduction In one of my previous post I was saying that: 

"The rule #1 of any bug hunter... is to have a good RSS feed list."
Well well well allow me in this post to state rule #2 (IMHO)

"The rule #2 of any bug hunter is to DO NOT be to fussy with 'food' specifically with left over"

aka even if the most experience bug hunter was there (and it definitely was my case here, given the fact we are talking about no one less than filedescriptor) do not assume that all the vulnerabilities have been found! So if you want some examples here we go.
Part I - GoogleI have the privilege to receive from time to time Google Vulnerability Research Grant. One of the last I received had many target options to choose from, but one in particular caught my attention, namely Google Issue T…

OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701)

Usual Mandatory Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) so I might likely end up writing a bunch of mistakes in this blog post...

tl;dr The OpenSSL 1.0.2 releases suffer from a Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups. This issue got assigned CVE-2016-0701 with a severity of High and OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to 1.0.2f. If an application is using DH configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" or not Lim-Lee (as the one in RFC 5114) and either Static DH ciphersuites are used or DHE ciphersuites with the default OpenSSL configuration (in particular SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not set) then is vulnerable to this attack.  It is believed that many popular applications (e.g. Apache mod_ssl) do set the  SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option and would therefore not be at risk (for DHE ciphersuites), they still might be for Static DH ciphersuites.
Introduction So if you are still here it means you wanna know more. And here is the thing. In my last blog post I was …