7 ms·
Why doesn't the article contain proof of either attack in action? I would be surprised if the second attack worked after what must be at least a couple layers
by tyrust 2mo ago
Why doesn't the article contain proof of either attack in action?
I would be surprised if the second attack worked after what must be at least a couple layers of markdown/html conversion and spam filtering.
disclaimer: work at Google, but far removed from YouTube
- chii 2mo agoThe attack requires a third party to unknowingly click on the engineered URL that leak private video title. Not sure if it counts as a POC if you can only use your own channel to prove it works. But still, it would require a user interaction to click on the link to leak data - and google should acknowledge it as an issue, because an attacker should never be able to generate a link they control in a trusted/secure environment.
- tyrust 2mo agoI understand the purported vulnerability. What I am saying is that I would be surprised if the URL were rendered, let alone made it to the victim.