Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Ein globaler Communitymoderator hat einen Beitrag als Antwort auf die ursprüngliche Frage markiert.
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Well the guy who discovered the flaw even said in that article that it was hacker one, NOT steam who basically screwed up. So it sounds like Hackerone made a mistake, miscommunicated it, etc.
The only flaw he saw with Valve was how long it took Valve to respond to him which makes perfect sense since the company they rely on to filter thru these issues screwed up.
A major no no? Nah, even Google does that if the company refuses to fix it or doesn't fix it in time. They even publicly released Windows 10 zero-day vulnerabilities only because Microsoft didn't fix it fast enough, as a small incentive.
It's a bit similar to what happened with the Steam vulnerability, the researchers reported it to Valve that refused to fix it, because it was outside the scope of their bug bounty program and so they disclosed it publicly.
It's also still better if such known vulnerabilities are publicly disclosed if not fixed asap instead of hiding them and to hope that criminals don't find them too.
Anyway the worst is when criminals find vulnerabilities that nobody knows yet, because they for sure won't report or disclose them, but simply use them themselves and/or sell them to other criminals.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/08/22/microsoft-windows-10-steam-gaming-windows8-windows-7-warning-upgrade-windows/#2254ee0e606d
I havent seen any updates yet, so one would only assume every steam user is vulnerable NOW. And considering how viral this is now... Should have been working on a fix yesterday
And it has been patched "again" in the beta.
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/SteamClientBeta#announcements/detail/1599262071399843693
curious...... considering there is ALREADY a workaround on the 'fix' to make it wormable again
try again......................................
In fact. maybe next time. Inform the customers about a major security breech?!?!?!?!?! just a thought.... Cuz quite honestly... how valve handled this. makes me not want to be a customer any longer (not to mention having to sort through piles of smut games to find something decent)
Is this directed at me? If so, uh, no, I'm right on time. He earned it not only in its discovery but being a primary catalyst via all the bad press that is finally forcing Valve to look at its own longstanding mess. As for the wormable attribute, has this been seen in the wild yet?
As is, Valve have done a fairly decent job ... namely keeping quiet on the vulnerability so that word doesn't get around and there isn't and exploit rush. . There are always going to be vulnerabilities in windows and in any piece of software that interacts with a human or other systems.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/researcher-publishes-second-steam-zero-day-after-getting-banned-on-valves-bug-bounty-program/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=21431524439425016870159225878350
I work in the computer industry and am a long-time customer of your company as are both of my sons. I understand the issues here and your company's stance. As long as your company continues this mindset I am no longer purchasing new software from your company, have already removed your client from critical computers, and will be barring my sons from purchasing any new software through Steam. While I understand your desire to distance yourself from EoP/LPE issues it's not something a responsible company can do. Please rethink this stance or you've permanently lost a customer - I just can't risk having your client on my computer. Things happen, malicious software gets in from somewhere else, and the Steam client being a platform that can elevate the privileges for that malicious software isn't worth the cost of finding the software from another source.
I'll be sharing this widely and hope you have an acceptable response to the issue.
Thanks!
The fix is already being tested - https://steamcommunity.com/groups/SteamClientBeta#announcements/detail/1599262071399843693
So way to over-react......
Yeah, isn't this still the same exploit that can only be performed if a malicious user already has direct access to your PC in the first place? Furthermore this guy that got "unjustly" banned was banned for not properly following Valve's bounty rules/guidelines, got mad about being banned and proceeded to break the rules again by releasing the exploit/vulnerability publicly?
Then Valve fixed the initial vulnerability but a "new" one cropped up; which is essentially a workaround to the fix(by replacing the new files with old, outdated, files) .... which means a malicious user still needs direct access to your PC, right?
And then patched that one up.
While Valve likes to use the word "fix" in *TWO* of there change logs, it is not an indication that it is an over-reaction to be offended by how this issue played out.
First, having a developer stop a PoC (Proof of Concept) is not the same as fixing a vulnerability. It is important that a vendor work with a security researcher to understand the full scope of the vulnerability and to confirm with the researcher the purposed "fix" covers that entire scope. Valve still does not seem to be doing that as yet secondary mitigation attempt is needed to address the first so-called "fix" was incomplete.
Second, and more importantly, there are still major problems with Valve stance on handling security both with the HackerOne bounty policy and with the lack of a full time security researcher working as a direct employee of Valve.
Valve has admitted in an official statement to BleepingComputer that rejecting the vulnerability report was a mistake. They have also updated there HackerOne bounty policy. But there are still major issues left unresolved.
One of the biggest issues that remain is this line:
This is a clear conflict of interest. They can both declare something is not going to be fixed and that there should be no transparency provided to the customers! That is a problem the size of an elephant and has not been fixed yet.
Another item that will probably be a problem:
As far as I can tell, the majority of the Steam client code is from open source components. I agree problems with those components should be reported to the authors. But that does not mean the component authors will take responsibility for it. They may ask for details on how Steam uses their component that only Valve developers could provide. To get those details probably requires getting Valve to accept a security report which they already stated they won't accept. Or maybe the open source project decides that Steam uses the component in an incorrect way and the security issue is really specific only to Steam use-case. Regardless, there should be some point when working with a component author fails that Valve takes responsibility. Instead the stated policy on H1 allows Valve to avoid accountability for the behavior of large chunks of code that make up Steam and to do so indefinitely.
Imagine if a restaurant operated that way. You let a restaurant known their product gave you food poisoning. The restaurant claims no responsibility when they determine it was the meat and tell you to talk to the meat distributor. You talk to the meat distributor that claims it is how the restaurant handles the meat. And the restaurant just continues to blame the meat distributor but also has not plans to stop using that meat distributor. Would it be an over-reaction to say you would stop eating there?
There needs to be some point in which a problem can be escalated to Valve for *ANY* of the Steam client code and they take responsibility for the behavior of the client if no one else will. The H1 policy does not indicate such an escalation path exists.
I assume by "direct access" you mean the attacker needs to be in the same room as the computer. If that is what you are trying to say then the answer is no. This exploit just needed the ability to perform RCE (Remote Code Execution) as any normal user. While most RCE issues should remain contained to a single account, Valve provided a way to get full control.
It is true he was unjustly banned for not following Valve's bounty rules. CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team), an established and respected member of the computer security community for over 20 years, has the following disclosure policy:
Valve's policy and how they enforce the policy goes against established industry practices. Valve left a loop-hole to FOREVER forbid the disclosure while stating in the same exact policy the following:
Which is worse? A security researcher following the same policies as CERT or a company that fraudulently claims "transparency" while indefinitely forbidding transparency of a serious security issue?
As to if the security researcher "proceeded to break the rules again by releasing the exploit," that is not true. The people that released the Proof of Concept exploit to the public are not the same person that submitted the H1 report--they do not exist in the same exact body.