do.
Bob
At 09:19 AM 3/29/2002 +0800, you wrote:
>At 1:26 PM -0800 28/03/02, BobsKC wrote:
>>Every once in a while.. even after 9 years here, I forget that I should
>>never send anything to this list unless I'm prepared to suffer insults
>>and comments about
Every once in a while.. even after 9 years here, I forget that I should
never send anything to this list unless I'm prepared to suffer insults and
comments about my technical idiocy ... This current round of graciousness
by list members displaying their appreciation for someone trying to shar
I am passing this on from lb aka Fireball .. he seems to want to help
Bob
[1:29] anyway..
[1:29] 21 BN-ag1.BN.net.DTAG.DE (62.154.66.46) 179 ms 180 ms 181 ms
[1:29] 22 192.168.0.2 (192.168.0.2) 188 ms 191 ms 184 ms
[1:29] 23 192.168.0.2 (192.168.0.2) 189 ms 185 ms 183 ms
[1:29]
The problem has been around forever but is only becoming a serious problem
now that we have so many people trying to get guests to give them their
passwords. I have sent the problem over to the network coders with an
explanation as to why it is a problem and what the severity level is. I'll
After I sent the other mail, he added this:
[0:30] I'm not sure.. what I'm talking about isn't a BIND problem,
it's just a weakness in the DNS protocol, period. theres nothing that can
stop it except the next-generation protocol(DNSSEC, cryptographicly signed
packets)
In a log below, with pWr, he claims there is a bug in the new code .. I'm
pasting his conversation below along with the info on a person who
supposedly had utilized the bug.
Bob
khaki is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * khaki
*** Looking up microsoft.com
*** Resolved microsoft.com to 207.46.197.102
/useri
>X-Originating-IP: [64.128.185.169]
>From: "John Yonn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [User-Com] A suggestion, Open SSL Sockets.
>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:01:02 -0500
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2001 08:01:02.0455 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[A84C6070:01C17719]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTE
