> 'vuln'dev', and besides I wouldn't think that any
> one here would do something malicious with any idea
> that actually worked for the worse.
Assuming that everyone subscribed to the list has the best of intentions,
what about people that can scan the publicly accessible archives? Or even
the s
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Ross Chandler wrote:
> > I seem to be having the same or similar problems with my Cisco boxes
> > also , they either reboot or the pris hang , users get busy's but no
> > one is logged in at all , when I do a show isdn status it shows b
> > channels in use but no one on, the
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34422-2003Aug22_2.html
>Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard Law assistant professor. "Now one person
>really can change the world. But that's also what's terrifying."
>
>When hackers three decades ago found they could get free calls on pay
>phones using a to
On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 18:31 Europe/Dublin, John Lord wrote:
I seem to be having the same or similar problems with my Cisco boxes
also , they either reboot or the pris hang , users get busy's but no
one
is logged in at all , when I do a show isdn status it shows b channels
in use but no o
All,
I put a small talk on at this years Defcon, discussing some of the rtt
work I've been doing. For those interested in the topic, I've placed
an mp3 of the presentation and my slides here:
http://144.92.40.150/~xam/misc/dc-11/dc11-talk.htm
http://144.92.40.150/~xam/misc/dc-11/020.MP3
Enjoy,
I seem to be having the same or similar problems with my Cisco boxes
also , they either reboot or the pris hang , users get busy's but no one
is logged in at all , when I do a show isdn status it shows b channels
in use but no one on, the only way to fix is reboot the box , and it
seems to be
Hi
Just a quick look at my syslog file, where MOO is the name of my ACL.
fgrep MOO /var/log/cisco/.log | grep 27015 -c
2383
fgrep MOO /var/log/cisco/.log | grep 27016 -c
459
fgrep MOO /var/log/cisco/.log | grep 27017 -c
210
fgrep MOO /var/log/cisco/.log | grep 27018 -c
59
As you can see most
"J. Oquendo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apologies beforehand if this post seems a bit odd,
> but I did not see anything similar to a networking
> 'vuln'dev', and besides I wouldn't think that any
> one here would do something malicious with any idea
> that actually worked for the worse.
This
On 8/23/03 7:17 AM, "Darren Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They were trying to hit servers in multiple subnets, all on ports 270XX.
I'm not sure on this. Lots of gaming servers use the 270XX UDP range.
Quake3, HL, etc.
It may be possible it's just probing for other HL servers running on
d
Hi
I popped onto #nanog on efnet last night reporting UDP 'Gaming' Traffic
hitting our services from those 20 boxes and got laughed at for suggesting
"game" traffic, i'm glad someone else noticed it too!
We run lots of Game Servers in the UK and most of the CS ones were getting
traffic from thos
I was reading some PDF files on BGP along with
Routing TCP/IP v2, and I found myself pondering
what a nasty damn worm it would be if someone
were to do something using winpcap in conjucting
with the worm/virus, and I was a bit confused,
disturbed, lost. So I drew up a quick question
complete with
11 matches
Mail list logo
