Re:Remote Code Execution Vulnerability in Google They Are No...
by denton-scratch on Saturday April 15, 2023 @03:26PM
(#35583785)
> It required tricking a trusted human to work.
That's what I thought. Until I thought a bit more.
Firstly he didn't fool the trusted human into doing anything they weren't already doing anyway. I don't see anyone being tricked.
Secondly, a lot of exploits depend on someone doing, unprompted, something they really didn't ought to do. I mean, if you rule out as an exploit anthing that simply depends on people not taking active measures against an attack they didn't know about, there's not a lot left.
I don't think Goo should have paid out, though; there's no vulnerability shown in any Google software, whether a product or an internal tool. It looks to me like a pip vuln that $TRUSTED_HUMAN could and should have evaded.
That's what I thought. Until I thought a bit more.
Firstly he didn't fool the trusted human into doing anything they weren't already doing anyway. I don't see anyone being tricked.
Secondly, a lot of exploits depend on someone doing, unprompted, something they really didn't ought to do. I mean, if you rule out as an exploit anthing that simply depends on people not taking active measures against an attack they didn't know about, there's not a lot left.
I don't think Goo should have paid out, though; there's no vulnerability shown in any Google software, whether a product or an internal tool. It looks to me like a pip vuln that $TRUSTED_HUMAN could and should have evaded.