Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

5/15/2015
04:10 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Polish Security Firm Discloses Unpatched Security Flaws in Google App Engine

Google was given enough time to respond researcher says.

Google’s Project Zero vulnerability research group has drawn some flak recently for its practice of publicly disclosing security flaws in software from other vendors after a 90-day notice period, regardless of whether patches are available or not.

Friday, the company may have gotten a small taste of its own medicine when Polish firm Security Explorations Friday released details on several unpatched vulnerabilities in Google’s cloud software after the Internet giant allegedly failed to respond in a timely manner to the issue.

The vulnerabilities in Google’s App Engine (GAE) software include three complete Java sandbox escapes that could be used to gather a lot of information on the Java Runtime Environment sandbox itself. “They also seem to be a potentially good starting point to proceed with attacks against the OS sandbox and RPC services visible to the sandboxed Java environment,” Adam Gowdiak, CEO of Security Explorations said in emailed comments to Dark Reading.

In addition to the flaws, Security Explorations also released proof of concept code showing how the vulnerabilities can be exploit to bypass the Java security sandbox in GAE.

Google’s App Engine is a hosted service for enterprises seeking to run and maintain applications in the cloud.

This is the second time in less than six months that Security Explorations has uncovered holes in the technology. In December, the company disclosed a total of 31 security issues in the software, including 22 that allowed an escape from the Java security sandbox.

Google patched those flaws by mid-March, Gowdiak said. Following that, between March and April, Security Explorations reported an additional 10 issues to Google, of which seven were publicly disclosed today, he added.

“The security issues published today need to be combined together in order to conduct a successful attack. In that context, it's difficult to point to a single one that's the most serious,” Gowdiak said. The Java security sandbox escape exploit was the most that Security Explorations could achieve given the constraints under which it conducted the vulnerability research on GAE, he said.

For Google, the disclosures by Security Explorations have become a sort of test of its own tolerance for bug disclosures for which no patches are immediately available. The disclosure also focuses attention once again on the issue of responsible bug disclosure practices, especially at a time when enterprises need all the protection they can from software vendors.

Many security researchers and vendors acknowledge that the safest way to publicly disclose bugs in software products is after the vendor has had a chance to fix it. But there is considerable debate on just how much notice is reasonable enough for a vendor to address the issue.

Google itself has maintained that a 90-day window is more than enough time for a fix. But some within the industry have been irritated by the company’s refusal—till recently at least—to budge from that deadline.

In January, Microsoft’s senior director of Trustworthy Computing Chris Betz, raked Google through the coals for publicly releasing information on a flaw in a Microsoft product, just two days before a scheduled Patch Tuesday fix for it.

Although sticking to a deadline is good policy, Google’s decision to go public with the flaw despite knowing about the fix, “feels less like principles and more like a “gotcha,” with customers the ones who may suffer as a result,” Betz had noted. Contrary to perception, publicly releasing information on a flaw without context or further protections, “unduly pressures an already complicated technical environment,” he had said.

Following the criticism, Google loosened its disclosure policy a bit and now gives vendors a grace period beyond 90 days in certain cases.

Google did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s unclear how the company’s views the latest disclosures by Security Explorations. Back in December, the security firm claimed Google initially suspended its GAE account following the disclosures. Later, the company announced that it had received a reward of  $50,000 from Google for finding the bugs.

This time around, Gowdiak says he gave Google three weeks to confirm or deny the reported flaws. “They were fully documented and accompanied by Proof of Concept codes,” he said.

Gowdiak said Security Explorations does not follow a strict rule for vulnerability disclosures. “If a vulnerability is confirmed by a vendor and we are provided with status updates regarding the patching process, we usually wait …until the patches are released. “

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Windows 10 Migration: Getting It Right
Kevin Alexandra, Principal Solutions Engineer at BeyondTrust,  5/15/2019
Baltimore Ransomware Attack Takes Strange Twist
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  5/14/2019
When Older Windows Systems Won't Die
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  5/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12184
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-19
There is XSS in browser/components/MarkdownPreview.js in BoostIO Boostnote 0.11.15 via a label named flowchart, sequence, gallery, or chart, as demonstrated by a crafted SRC attribute of an IFRAME element, a different vulnerability than CVE-2019-12136.
CVE-2019-12173
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-18
MacDown 0.7.1 (870) allows remote code execution via a file:\\\ URI, with a .app pathname, in the HREF attribute of an A element. This is different from CVE-2019-12138.
CVE-2019-12172
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
Typora 0.9.9.21.1 (1913) allows arbitrary code execution via a modified file: URL syntax in the HREF attribute of an AREA element, as demonstrated by file:\\\ on macOS or Linux, or file://C| on Windows. This is different from CVE-2019-12137.
CVE-2019-12168
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
Four-Faith Wireless Mobile Router F3x24 v1.0 devices allow remote code execution via the Command Shell (aka Administration > Commands) screen.
CVE-2019-12170
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
ATutor through 2.2.4 is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads via the mods/_core/backups/upload.php (aka backup) component. This may result in remote command execution. An attacker can use the instructor account to fully compromise the system using a crafted backup ZIP archive. This will allow for PH...