Summary of the responses to this query. It seems the vulnerability can't
be reproduces reliably in all instances. Try running the exploits
for several minutes. Successful results have been obtained across a LAN
as well as over the Internet. The result can vary from rebooting
the machine, blue scre
I had contacted the person who posted this information. It
seems that AOL has contacted him and he refuses to talk
about this if you ask about it.
Does anyone have any information on how to make your own
programmable buttons for aol?
granny
About a year ago, I found out that by sending the
Hi,
Local users can halt the operating system by 'adb' command under my AIX
box.
Here's a simple C program:
main()
{
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
{
}
return 0;
}
I compiled the program and run 'adb':
$ cc -g -o a.out a.c
$ adb a.out -
adb
.main,5:s
"Having the option" never hurt anyone.
You can produce SDAs, and use them if you wish,
AND you can NOT open executables that arrived in
your mailbox and you don't trust.
It's madness to say that it is a "security threat".
With your logic, e-mailing is a security threat as well ;-)
Who knows what
In some mail from Anonymous, sie said:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> THC released a new article dealing with FreeBSD 3.x
> Kernel modules that can attack/backdoor the
> system.
> You can find our article on http://thc.pimmel.com or
> http://r3wt.base.org.
A couple of comments. This is only possible on syste
Hi, everybody!
> > The calendar manager (rpc.cmsd) on Solaris 2.5 and 2.5.1 is vulnerable
> > to a buffer overflow
> > attack...
> Can you confirm that compromised system(s) were equipped with CDE? Or in
> other words was it /usr/dt/bin/rpc.cmsd that was assigned to do the job
> in /etc/inetd.con
> Hi, everybody!
>
> > > The calendar manager (rpc.cmsd) on Solaris 2.5 and 2.5.1 is vulnerable
> > > to a buffer overflow
> > > attack...
> ... Shall we have a look? Let's 'cm_lookup -c
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and simultaneously 'truss -p on
> 2.6.host:
>
> ...
> statvfs("/var/spool/calendar/callog
Hello,
Linux 2.0.37 released last month introduces the support for more than
1 GB of physical memory on x86 (which wasn't supported in earlier 2.0
kernels). It is now possible to increase the limit, at the expense of
reducing the per process address space.
There're three settings supported: Sta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andreas Bogk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 7. Problem description:
> >
> > Several potential buffer overruns have been corrected within the net-tools
> > package.
>
> Could someone from RedHat please identify the
Hello all,
Just to let you know I've tested all 3 recently posted programs that exploit
this IGMP frag bug in win98 on two win98 machines (not SE) using winsock
ver. 2.2 and one win95 machine whose tcp/ip stack was upgraded to 2.2 and
they all remained fine (this was at my work's dept lan, no fir
http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/bo2k.asp
Microsoft has a press release about BackOrifice 2000 out.
From the release:
"Remote control software is not malicious in and of itself; in fact,
legitimate remote control software packages are available for use by system
administrators. Wha
Hello all,
I've compiled this and the other two exploits and tested
against two win98 (original not SE) machines and they
remained perfectly up and active. I then ran Conseal PC
Firewall ver. 1.35 on one machine and it didn't even pick up
any incoming packets.
No i'm not behind any firewall
105566-06 was installed on our machine that was hit, When I reported it
to Sun I recieved e-mail that they are working on a fresh fix, and it'll
be available 'soon'. Perhaps this time they'll fix all the buffer
overflows. Luckly the twerp that went after my machine was a clueless
twit and didn'
13 matches
Mail list logo
