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 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM, xD 0x41<
secn3t <at> 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
>> dick.
>>
>> Perhaps you should reserve your wrath for companies that offer
>> $fuckall for good bugs? :)
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Chris
>>
>>> 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.
>>> SHAME ON YOU
FACEBOOK.COM , Shame...
>>>
>>> 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
>>> repruction.
>>> 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
>>> will.
>>> Enjoy, have a great day!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 October 2011 05:12, Nathan Power<
np <at> securitypentest.com> wrote:
>>>> That was the original program I was participating in. Facebook has agreed
>>>> to pay me a bounty for this bug.
>>>>
>>>> Nathan Power
>>>>
www.securitypentest.com
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ulises2k<
ulises2k <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You know this? ;)
>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/whitehat/bounty/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 17:49, Nathan Power<
np <at> securitypentest.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I would also like to note this vulnerability was reported responsibly in
>>>>>> regards to full disclosure.
>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nathan Power
>>>>>>
www.securitypentest.com
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Power<
np <at> securitypentest.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I was basically told that Facebook didn't see it as an issue and I was
>>>>>>> puzzled by that. Ends up the Facebook security team had issues reproducing
>>>>>>> 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 they
>>>>>>> seem to have been able to reproduce the bug.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nathan Power
>>>>>>>
www.securitypentest.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Pablo Ximenes<
pablo <at> ximen.es> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Not fixed yet. At least not yesterday when I checked.
>>>>>>>> Nathan, didn't Facebook ask for some time to fix this bug after they
>>>>>>>> have acknowledged it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pablo Ximenes
>>>>>>>>
http://ximen.es/
>>>>>>>>
http://twitter.com/pabloximenes
>>>>>>>> Em 27/10/2011, às 19:29, Joshua Thomas<
rappercrazzy <at> gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> escreveu:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 <at> securitypentest.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 1. Summary:
>>>>>>>>> When using the Facebook 'Messages' tab, there is a feature to attach
>>>>>>>>> a file.
>>>>>>>>> Using this feature normally, the site won't allow a user to attach an
>>>>>>>>> executable file.
>>>>>>>>> A bug was discovered to subvert this security mechanisms. Note, you
>>>>>>>>> do NOT have
>>>>>>>>> to be friends with the user to send them a message with an
>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of this advisory here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.securitypentest.com/2011/10/facebook-attach-exe-vulnerability.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Enjoy :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nathan Power
>>>>>>>>>
www.securitypentest.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/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -
http://secunia.com/