From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 19 22:17:36 2003
The only bad thing with this exploit is that SuSE did know about the
problem sice october but did not report it!
I would think that the existence of the exploit in the first place would
be a bad thing as well. Shall we share the blame where it
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 18 18:22:22 2003
http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5ZP0C2AAAC.html
So, what we have here is someone installing an old version with a=20
known vulnerability, writing an exploit for it, and bragging about=20
it. Either that or it took him 3 1/2 months more than
On Sat 19 July 2003 15:20, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 18 18:22:22 2003
http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5ZP0C2AAAC.html
So, what we have here is someone installing an old version with
a=20 known vulnerability, writing an exploit for it, and
bragging about=20
http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5ZP0C2AAAC.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5ZP0C2AAAC.html
This is just a very very old one that has been fixed on May 3th (3.5 months
before the posting you you refer has been made).
It could thus nopt be called a cdrecord vulnerability but probably a Slackware
On Fri 18 July 2003 17:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5ZP0C2AAAC.html
This is just a very very old one that has been fixed on May 3th
(3.5 months before the posting you you refer has been made).
It could thus nopt be
6 matches
Mail list logo
