Re: [Full-Disclosure] Erasing a hard disk easily
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Gregh wrote: > Since that time I have seen sensationalist TV shows showing how FBI and > CIA operatives get stuff out written to a sector BEFORE the sector was > overwritten and I honestly cannot understand how that could be, if at > all possible. Am I right in thinking those shows are bull? It's quite possible. Simply put, you record what's on the disk. Then, you wind up the gain on the read amplifiers and re-read, subtracting what you read last time. What's left is what got recorded over... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Erasing a hard disk easily
[ Cc'd by intention ] On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Darren Reed wrote: > Have you ever actually used format on Solaris to format a SCSI disk ? > It's somewhat similar, I believe, to "scsictl /dev/sd0a format" on NetBSD. Etc. Odd... I began seeing replies to this *much* before I saw this original post from you. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cryptography Mailing List
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, igotroot wrote: > Can anyone reccomend a good cryptography mailing list? I have searched > and searched and im only able to find archives of several of them, but > no sign up pages. Thanks in advance. There's an excellent (and moderated) list over at MetzDowd - tickle "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cool Web Search
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Andrew Clover wrote: > This is not the case for all variants of CWS. The newer, sneakier > variants can rebuild themselves if they detect a program like HijackThis > removing their registry entries. Not really "new", in the scheme of things. Over 30 years ago, some bored prgrammer wrote something for one of the mainframes of the day (ICL? IBM? Burroughs?) called "Robin Hood and Friar Tuck". They were two programs that monitored each other, occasionally printing cheeky messages to the console. Eventually, the (night-shift) operator would notice, and delete one of them. The console dialogue then went something like this: FRIAR: HELP ME SIR ROBIN, I AM UNDER ATTACK! ROBIN: FEAR NOT, BRAVE FRIAR, I SHALL RESCUE YOU! And so one restarted the other. The only way to remove this harmless jape (if you didn't know the right command) was to IPL the box, and it was a brave operator who did that... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Small (but useful) utility
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, M. Mohr wrote: > When I couldn't find a decent file wiping utility on my own > machine, I decided to write one. Yes, I did search the net > and came up with a few... but they seem to be poorly written > and overly complicated. So, in just 64 lines, I wrote one > that would be useful for me, that would work well, and that is > simple enough to understand. You have failed to take the effects of caching (memory and disk) into account. This is probably why the others are "overly complicated." -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] [anti-XSS]about CERT/CC:malicious_code_mitigation
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, dd wrote: > > The *important* part is that you're *not* using 's/[list-of-known-bad]//g', > > but that you use 's/[^list-of-known-good]//g'. Making the known-good list > > for each field is the programmer's problem. > > [...] > > PS- I assume it wasn't really your intent to remove the good chars... That is not what he wrote above. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: Re: open telnet port
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Dave Ewart wrote: > > Yes, I know it isn't secure, but sometimes it can be the last > > resort... > > No no, bad security. Physical access should be the last resort, not > Telnet. Makes you wonder what we did in the days before Telnet :-) -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [SPAM] [Full-Disclosure] Your daily internet traffic report
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Hugo van der Kooij wrote: > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Lots 'o flame but no light. > > > > How about sharing your knowledge of why certain icmp traffic should be > > allowed and the risks associated with allowing that traffic? > > Just to name one: Path MTU discovery (RFC 1191) To those who seek to block ICMP, I say: "Let them." I'm sure that a certain Mr. Charles Darwin will soon sort them out. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] JPEG Virus
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > The attached file IS INFECTED with the new JPEG virus... Or rather, it > has the malicious image that will then infect your machine. Odd; it didn't seem to work on any of my *BSD boxes. XV complains about extraneous bytes and the quantizatiion (sic) table. Oh well; it looks like we *BSD users are safe from this one :-) -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] JPEG Virus
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > > > The attached file IS INFECTED with the new JPEG virus... Or rather, it > > has the malicious image that will then infect your machine. > > Odd; it didn't seem to work on any of my *BSD boxes. XV complains about > extraneous bytes and the quantizatiion (sic) table. > > Oh well; it looks like we *BSD users are safe from this one :-) Hmmm... Not a bad night's fishing. Two personal replies in my mailbox, from a couple of lusers who obviously missed the difference between the above declaration "will then infect your machine" with the obvious correction of "will then infect your WINDOZE machine." -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: Fw: [Full-Disclosure] Joke.cpl ???
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Daniel Bachfeld wrote: [...] > This is the biggest divergence i've seen the last months. Is there any > reason, why the vendors could not agree on one name? [...] Money. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] InfoSec sleuths beware ...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Exibar wrote: > Seriously though, the leak was a "boo-boo" by one of Microsoft's > partners, I'm sure. I'm sure that someone got their hand slapped pretty > hard for this blunder and I'm also sure that Microsoft will see that it > won't happen again and I seriously doubt that the source leak will cause > any sleepless nights. People make mistakes, they deal with it, and > move on with life Am I the only one to have noticed that the unzipped contents neatly fit on a CD? Not arguing one way or the other, but it does suggest a possible vector. Accidental? I doubt it. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] InfoSec sleuths beware ...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Calum wrote: > > Am I the only one to have noticed that the unzipped contents neatly fit on > > a CD? Not arguing one way or the other, but it does suggest a possible > > vector. Accidental? I doubt it. > > If that was the way that the files were leaked, surely it would have been the > zip that was ~650 Mb? Not if the perp had a limited window of opportunity... Let's say he knew he was about to be shown the door, for example. He fires up a GUI, clicks on the juciest directories until he gets 650Mb, writes the CD, then pockets it. Later, he zips it at his leisure. That way, there's no incriminating watermarks or the like. It's what *I* would do, after all. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] And how long have buffer overflows been around?
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Edward W. Ray quoted: > Furthermore, the security kernel of the Windows NT server software was > written before the Internet... Wow - I didn't know NT was around *that* long... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] Knocking Microsoft
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, joe wrote: > And just to get it out there so people don't think they came up with some > surprising news. I am a Windows Guy. Previously I was a DEC RSTS/E guy, a > DEC VAX VMS guy, a Sperry Univac mainframe guy (though only COBOL coding on > punch cards), and a Sparc guy twiddling bits on the 68000. Ooh, a dick-waving contest... You're just a tiddler. Let's see; apart from when I built my own computers as a schoolboy in the late 60s, I got to use a Varian and a PDP-8 just after leaving school, regularly hacked into IBM MFT and MVT on a 360/50 followed by CDC KRONOS on a CYBER 70/72 and a 170/73, bummed around ICL GECOS and a Burroughs B-1700 on MCP, finally got employed in 1975 to keep people like me out and found Unix on a PDP-11/40. Since then, I've used RSX-11/D and /M (and hated them), RSTS/E (ditto), RT-11 (not too bad - it paid the rent and I got to be creative), VMS (why did those jerks go out of their way to make it hard to use?), and probably every version of Unix on possibly every bit of hardware around. Oh yes, I've also fiddled bits on Z80, 68000, etc. I remember thinking in the 80s when BillyWare became prevalent, why are these morons making the same mistakes we made and fixed years ago? -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] E-mail spoofing countermeasures (Was: Backdoor not recognized by Kaspersky)
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Lachniet, Mark wrote: > don't all email systems have a unique message ID on them? No. > Sendmail certainly does. It will generate one, and add one if missing on reception. -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Caching a sniffer
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Patricio Bruna V. wrote: > How can i know if there a sniffer running in my network? When you wake up one day to find that you're 0wn3d :-) Seriously, about the only way I can think of to detect a sniffer with its transmit leads cut is with a Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR) and look for an unexplained impedance bump. -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] Caching a sniffer
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Motiwala, Yusuf wrote: > TDR will not work if someone running Sniffer on existing network port. No, it won't; that's the point. You are supposed to account for all those cables leading out of the patch panel, but given that most humans are generally more than a few inches wide, you look for cable joins instead. -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Daniele Muscetta wrote: > I know, you roughly have some 26 Megabytes of patches to be installed > POST-SP4 and POST IE60SP1 on W2K. > > Is any other OS any better lately ? OpenBSD. FreeBSD. NetBSD. BSD/OS. See the pattern? I had a BSD/OS box exposed to the Net without a firewall for *years*; it was quite funny watching Penguin/OS exploits against it. -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] Ancient Trivia: +++ath0
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Cowles, Robert D. wrote: > Hayes implemented a "guard" ... they required a pause between the "+++" > and the following command. When other manufacturers implemented the > command set, they had to make some small changes so they could claim > they hadn't *completely* ripped off the Hayes command set ... they left > out the requirement for the pause. So, on lots of non-Hayes modems, you > could get them to hang up by just sending that string as data (or > including it as data in a ping packet). And another cool trick (implemented by the software, not the modem), was NO CARRIER at the start of a line. :-) (Yes, I used to enjoy picking on DOS users, and still do.) -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: User Insecurity
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OTOH, I learned the theory behind the design of the various systems that > comprise an automobile and got some hands on experience rebuilding > engines in high school auto shop. While I do not pretend to have the > working skills and knowledge to actually diagnose and repair a modern > auto I do have domain-specific knowledge which allows me to make > informed judgements of my mechanic's abilities by engaging him in > conversation regarding mechanics. I find if I keep my tie on, they tend to bullshit me (and are surprised when I point out the error of their ways), but if I take my tie off before seeing them I get a straight answer. YMMV. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] viruses being sent to this list
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote: > This is a small sample of what I have found in the archives: > message.pif - 5 copies > your_details.pif - 2 copies > attachment.htm.pif - 1 copies > file.pif - 1 copies > test.pif - 1 copies > readme.scr - 1 copies Yeah, that's pretty close to my recollection. I thought it ironic that this list -- a security list -- is populated by some infected idiots, but there you go. Someone said that they haven't seen any virus postings; you sure they are not being dumped by your ISP? They are *definitely* there. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] viruses being sent to this list
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > Yeah, that's pretty close to my recollection. I thought it ironic that > > this list -- a security list -- is populated by some infected idiots, > > but there you go. > > > Why leap to that conclusion? There are two more plausible possibilities. > 1) Viruses are sending mail to the list address. They'd have to forge a member's address as well. > 2) Malicious individuals are sending viruses to the list. That is also possible. > Why is it that people on this list, *in general*, tend to always assume the > worst of others in every situation? Because I'd take stupidity over malice any day; it's much more abundant. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] viruses being sent to this list
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > Because I'd take stupidity over malice any day; it's much more abundant. > > > Depending upon who you ask, 100% of the people in the world are stupid. > Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. It actually *is* possible to > approach people with the assumption that they have some intellect and allow > them to prove otherwise, but it seems most people prefer to assume > stupidity from the outset. Which seems pretty stupid to me. ;-) Viruses don't post themselves to mailing lists, so at least one person's actions were dubious. We are now ascertaining whether it was through malice or stupidity. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] viruses being sent to this list
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Someone said that they haven't seen any virus postings; you sure they > > are not being dumped by your ISP? They are *definitely* there. > > I know many get dumped by my mail server, which is why I went and checked the > actual list archives, and I *still* didn't see any that the archives thought > were from Gadi. I went through looking for Subject: lines that looked virusy > as well, and didn't spot any (although I admit I wasn't as thorough on that > part). I didn't say they claimed to have come from Gadi; I said they are there nonetheless. Such as the one posted, just now, with a subject of "Hokki =)". Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from netsys.com (NETSYS.COM [199.201.233.10]) by dave.horsfall.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i2O4ueK12277 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:56:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from NETSYS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netsys.com (8.11.6p2-2003-09-16/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2O4dTo10401; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:39:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from USER-3FI6NQ2SGD (36-nas1.dial-pool.digitelone.com [202.138.190.36]) by netsys.com (8.11.6p2-2003-09-16/8.11.6) with SMTP id i2O4Xrp08691 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:33:56 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] SHUT THE FUCK UP
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > JESUS CHRIST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU GODDAM MORONS But how shall we shut the fuck up, my lord? -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] The new Microsoft math: 1 patch for 14 vulnerabilities, MS04-011
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Exibar wrote: > But, Windows has a nice little utility that will patch you system for you > and pop up a nice little box near the clock that says system patched too... > Windows Update works quite well actually. Now if it was only turned full on > by default. And installing who knows what else on your system, with neither your consent nor your knowledge. At least we own our own boxes... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] Cisco LEAP exploit tool...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jeff Schreiner wrote: > To get a 2.4 Ghz signal to travel 7 miles you would have to install an > amplifier to boost the output to somewhere between 5 to 10 watts a 5 Ghz > signal would require even more at which point you're in violation of FCC > rules and Uncle Sam might come looking for ya. Or use a beam antenna. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] Cisco LEAP exploit tool...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jeff Schreiner wrote: > Sorry about the extended discussion on RF broadcasts, the main point wanted > to point out was detecting a 802.11 2.4 GHz transmission from 7 miles away > would be almost impossible. http://huizen.deds.nl/~pa0hoo/helix_wifi/linkbudgetcalc/wlan_budgetcalc.html would indicate otherwise. > Jeff Schreiner > FCC call sign KB0WUN -- Dave VK2KFU ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [FD] Super Worm
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Gregory A. Gilliss wrote: > ...as I recall, there were PDPs, IBMs, Cybers (IBM clones), > CDC, VAXen, and not much else available in '88 Minor correction: Cybers (made by CDC) were nothing like IBMs. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [FD] Super Worm
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Bruce Ediger wrote: > What!?! You must be kidding - there were *tons* more hardware vendors > back then, at least in terms of variety, because everyone had their own > CPU architecture, or at least a wildly variant operating system. > > From the 1988 period, you're missing out: > > AT&T (3b2), Prime, Data General, Masscomp, Apollo, Ridge, Sun, Pyramid, > Convex, Silicon Graphics, Mt Xinu, some company that made i860 multi- > processors, Sequent, Bolt, Beranek and Newman had a 20-bit CPU (Butterfly?), > Stellar, Ardent, Elxsi, and probably a pile of others. I seem to recall Z-80 > based multi-user systems among others. CCI, WICAT, ICL, NCR; on the Z-80 side there was Onyx and many others... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Felipe Angoitia wrote: > Hi abhilash verma and the rest... Why do you include this in your > mails? tracking full-disclosure readers which use html rendering muas? Sounds like a good reason to *not* use certain MUAs to me. Your choice, after all. Hint: my MUA renders HTML. It does *not* fetch web-bugs etc. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, KUIJPERS Jimmy wrote: > I will open the e-mail with a mail client with a new e-mail address > (when I get home tonight) and see how much spam I will receive. I will > give a report when I receive some significant spam or if I have not > received any spam for days and days. Unless you have a cryptographically-secure way of generating new email addresses, you will not have proved anything. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, KUIJPERS Jimmy wrote: > Why a "cryptographically-secure way of generating new email" ?? Because otherwise your nice new email address could be the victim of a dictionary attack, and you will not have proved anything either way. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Alerta Redsegura wrote: > Are you going to tell me you didn't see this ad in your MUA? > Then, it doesn´t render HTML! You have no idea what you're talking about. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Nancy Kramer wrote: > What do you use that does that? It's in my headers - Pine. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] leaking
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Marek Isalski wrote: > Each visitor is given a different email address. It's made up of their > IP address, the Unix time and a partial hash value, encrypted with a > private Serpent-256 key. Yep, and that way you can see who sold it to whom. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
[Full-Disclosure] Gnumeric and Applix can modify locked Excel files?
I found I was able to modify a supposedly password-locked Excel file without the password, with Gnumeric (a free *nix clone of Excel) and Applix (a commercial *nix clone of Office). To test this further (since I don't do Windoze) would anyone happen to have some non-sensitive locked spreadsheets that they could share with me? You can get the spreadsheet from http://horsfall.org/ft100memory0504.xls (but be gentle, as it's a slow link; there's nothing interesting there). -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Gnumeric and Applix can modify locked Excel files?
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Paul Szabo wrote: [ ... ] > Is the Excel issue related? Yeah, looks like it. Since the file wasn't encrypted, you don't even need a hex-editor: just use something other than Excel to open it... -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cisco's stolen code
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Tobias Weisserth wrote: > Just think about the repeated accusations against Linus Torvalds who > claims he never took a look at the "Lion's book". Just because the damn > book is there people have to defend against it. So stay the hell away > from code that hasn't been licensed to you. Besides, if John Lions was still alive, he'd be pleased to know that he inspired such work. AT&T might not, though (I recall that John had his own hassles with them)... -- Dave, who actually helped him ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] MS web designers -- "What Security Initiative?"
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, David Maxwell wrote: > For years, Microsoft has had a policy of announcing products that don't > exist yet, to cause customers to stop buying a competitor's product. > That's Vapourware. Hah - M$ is new at that game. IBM did it for years back in the 70s. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] FD info prompts M$ to summon the FBI on spy-vertisers
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Barrie Dempster wrote: > Does anyone know of a *reputable* list of similar nature detailing how > linux and other OSS perform in the discovery-patch timescale. You could check the Bugtraq archives and see how quickly they come out with a fix when a vulnerability is announced. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] IE Web Browser: "Sitting Duck"
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, joe wrote: > Of course you had FORTRAN and COBOL as well but you couldn't do fun > games in those. You mean like Adventure? I still have the original FORTRAN source for that somewhere on a tape. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Every person's vote counts the same. Just because you don't comprehend > the electoral college doesn't mean that a vote doesn't count. Let me see if I have this right, as this could well be a computer security issue (the reported discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual vote, with an interesting correlation to the actual vote-recording box used in that area). Or doesn't the statistical bell-curve work here? You don't vote for your beloved leader (as they do in some places). You don't even vote for your beloved party (as they do in Britain and Australia, the former being where I was born and the latter being where I live). Instead, you vote for a bunch of people who will vote on your behalf, usually by ignoring the popular vote and casting it 100% for their party. What did I miss? -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: Will you lot PISS OFF? (Re: [Full-Disclosure] OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.)
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, some toe-rag calling itself [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ Some auto private reply from some dick-wad or other ] > You have sent the attached unsolicited e-mail to an otherwise GOOD > security email list. Who died and made you a god, boy? > NO-ONE outside AMERICA gives a bloody SHIT about the American election > crap! Keep it OFF LIST! Well, some of us do, when it involves computer security. Here's a big hint: I am outside America, and I *do* give a shit. I don't suppose you have a real name, boy? > FUCK THE HELL OFF! But how shall we fuck off, lord? > OH and in case you twits DONT get it, this reply WASNT to the list! So > many so-called experts cannot even figure THAT out! TWITS! STOP SHOUTING! My screen hurts. PS: May I recommend some remedial grammar lessons? You appear to lack the apostrophe... PPS: I see you're posting from Ozemail; I must check their TOS one day. | Received: from p41700 ([203.102.42.55]) by smta02.mail.ozemail.net | with ESMTP | id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ah well, this tosser won't be bothering me again. --- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: Will you lot PISS OFF? (Re: [Full-Disclosure] OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.)
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, some toe-rag calling itself [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [ Some auto private reply from some dick-wad or other ] > > > You have sent the attached unsolicited e-mail to an otherwise GOOD > > security email list. > | Received: from p41700 ([203.102.42.55]) by smta02.mail.ozemail.net > | with ESMTP > | id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Ah well, this tosser won't be bothering me again. But it did try: Date: Nov 14 20:11:36 (iAE9BZb13485) from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=smta04.mail.ozemail.net [203.103.165.80] reject=550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Get a real email address -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Pursell, Aaron CONTRACTOR wrote: > So move out of the country. Like someone said before, IF john kerry even had > the inclination that he could have one, you know they would have sued, and > vise versa, and to my current knowledge the ONLY talk of any of this is > right here on this message list, I have not seen it on TV, or the news > paper, I see it on websites, that you all keep posting, and I still don't > believe it. You must not get around much. I've seen it on three other lists, and in Bruce Schneier's newsletter, and in news highlights in Australia. I think it was even mentioned in RISKS. Closing your eyes to it won't make it go away, I'm afraid. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Yet you want to control *all* of that to "take advantage of statistical > anomalies" in the equipment? > > Do we have a mathematician on this list who can calculate the probabilities of > this? It would be easier to compromise the central server that does the actual tallying (as has been suggested on some quality lists), and I suspect you know this. Are you being deliberately disingenuous? -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
RE: [Full-Disclosure] If Lycos can attack spammer sites, can we all start doing it?
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Michael R. Schmidt wrote: > Have you read the Geneva Convention? Or better yet "The United Nations > International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Read it, the > whole thing, and then bitch and moan. Do you really think Terrorists > live by it? About as much as Amerika does... > Article 7 > No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading > treatment or punishment. Which pretty much says it all. -- Dave ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Reality, humor, and history (was Re: MORE CRITICAL FLAWS IN MS WINDOWS EXPLORER
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (*) My all-time favorite "Close, but no ceee-gar" was the advice column for a > Unix journal where the author *remembered* the old "3 syncs before halt" > adage - but got it Very Wrong by advising "sync;sync;sync;halt". Bonus > points if you can remember (a) the *original* reason for the advice *and* > (b) how this version was Very Wrong (there's *multiple* answers for this one > ;) Early Unixes -- especially those with slow disks such as the RK05 -- could take several seconds to flush the buffered data to disk. The sync() call only *scheduled* the flush and returned right away, thus the disk data (especially the meta-data such as inodes etc) may not be up to date when you hit the switch (early Unixes did not have a halt command). By typing: # sync # sync # sync i.e. by waiting for the command to return, thrice, you were reasonably sure that the buffers were flushed, especially if you could see the disk activity lamps (not LEDs in those days). By using "sync; sync; sync" the operator did not have to wait, and so was lulled into a false sense of security. This was really important in those days, because the filesystem simply was not as resilient as it is now; a power failure *guaranteed* that you would lose files, and it was time for "check" (in Edition 5, and which became ncheck/dcheck/icheck and eventually fsck) and "clri". -- Dave, who had creamed several PDP-11 Unixes in his time ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
