[Full-disclosure] SEC Consult SA-20060512-0 :: Symantec Enterprise Firewall NAT/HTTP Proxy Private IP Exposure

SEC Consult Security Advisory 20060512-0 == title: Symantec Enterprise Firewall NAT/HTTP Proxy Private IP Exposure program: Symantec Enterprise FW vulnerable version: 8.0

Re: [Full-disclosure] MS06-019 - How long before this develops into a self propagating email worm

n3td3v, You wrote: > > threat meters: > Seriously, threat meters are a waste of time and should be scraped by all. I am not a big fan of them either unless they are implemented well, meaning there are concrete reasons to go from one state to the other and each state has specific actions attached

Re: [Full-disclosure] Should I Be Worried?

Ohio University suffers security breaches http://news.com.com/2100-7349_3-6071505.html?part=rss&tag=6071505&subj=news So can we assume the matter to be closed now? Or is yours still another school, waiting for data to be stolen? If it is another school, maybe all these break-in news reports wil

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

On 5/11/06, Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't we fairly quickly arrive at all products passing all the standard tests, and "passing" no longer means anything? I believe that point is called "success." - Brian ___ Full-Disclosure - We believ

[Full-disclosure] escalating privileges with named pipes

Hello list, does anyone know a practical example of named pipe attack to escalate privileges in Windows environment? I'm trying to learn more about named pipe attacks so any link/paper suggestion would be much appreciated (I already found "Discovering and Exploiting Named Pipe Security Flaws fo

[Full-disclosure] MS Jet Vuln...

Hello,I've had this laying around a while and thought I'd share. I lost most of my research on it and I dont belive it's ever been patched. Last time I checked it was a while back on win2k3 with all patches applied to the os and Jet. If my memory serves me correctly it's just a null pointer deferen

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

Brian Eaton wrote: On 5/11/06, Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't we fairly quickly arrive at all products passing all the standard tests, and "passing" no longer means anything? I believe that point is called "success." I was thinking more like all their "security" efforts only went

[Full-disclosure] Apple QuickDraw/QuickTime Multiple Vulnerabilities

McAfee, Inc. McAfee Avert(tm) Labs Security Advisory Public Release Date: 2006-05-11 Apple QuickDraw/QuickTime Multiple Vulnerabilities CVE-2006-1249, CVE-2006-1453, CVE-2006-1454, CVE-2006-1459, CVE-2006-1460, CVE-2006-1461, C

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

On 5/12/06, Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian Eaton wrote: > On 5/11/06, Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Don't we fairly quickly arrive at all products passing all the standard >> tests, and "passing" no longer means anything? > > I believe that point is called "success." I was

Re: [Full-disclosure] escalating privileges with named pipes

Dear /dev/null, You can try this one: DigitalScream, Windows named pipes exploitation http://www.phrack.org/phrack/61/p61-0x03_Linenoise.txt In addition to explanations there are references to real-world exploits. --Friday, May 12, 2006, 6:16:11 PM, you wrote to full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.

Re: [Full-disclosure] escalating privileges with named pipes

Not sure if the below is the same, but: http://www.blakewatts.com/namedpipepaper.html On Fri, 12 May 2006, 3APA3A wrote: :Dear /dev/null, : :You can try this one: : :DigitalScream, Windows named pipes exploitation :http://www.phrack.org/phrack/61/p61-0x03_Linenoise.txt : :In addition to explana

Re: [Full-disclosure] escalating privileges with named pipes

Dear /dev/null, You can try this one: DigitalScream, Windows named pipes exploitation http://www.phrack.org/phrack/61/p61-0x03_Linenoise.txt In addition to explanations there are references to real-world exploits. --Friday, May 12, 2006, 6:16:11 PM, you wrote to full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

On Friday 12 May 2006 05:20, Blue Boar wrote: Hello, > Do you want just public results of standardized blackbox testing? > Something similar to the ICSA firewall certification? (Though, I assume > you want actual public results.) That would be ideal. properly anonimized ofcourse. It would be nice

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

On Friday 12 May 2006 05:20, Blue Boar wrote: Hello, > Do you want just public results of standardized blackbox testing? > Something similar to the ICSA firewall certification? (Though, I assume > you want actual public results.) That would be ideal. properly anonimized ofcourse. It would be nice

Re: [Full-disclosure] How secure is software X?

Well the same question cam eup also in OpenBSD-mailinglists. And I angree with Theo de Raadt because he`s completly right. So I`ll simply paste his mail: --- > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114657401630096&w=2 > > If I understand correctly from what I've been told, this is not a >

[Full-disclosure] Black Box Voting's Latest Diebold Report

> http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/27675.html ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

[Full-disclosure] Re: How secure is software X?

Hi David, Very briefly because I'm swamped today: Please consider bringing some of this to Metricon (https://securitymetrics.org/content/Wiki.jsp?page=Welcome) Also there's a project of US DHS/NIST and probably others called SAMATE Software Assurance Metrics and Tool Evaluation http://samate.nis

[Full-disclosure] Re: How secure is software X?

At least as secure as Vulnerability Assessment Assurance Level P; or Q or R. Well, that's what I think we should be able to say. What we need is an open standard, that has been agreed upon by recognized experts, against which the absence of software security vulnerability can be measured - somet

[Full-disclosure] Scientists Call Diebold Security Flaw 'Worst Ever'

[I don't agree with the Professor, when he asserts that the best treatment for this problem is denial. I suggest that the best treatment for this problem is dissemination, far and wide, so that the broadest range of pressures is brought to bear. - Stu] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0511

Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Research resources: ttp://whatreallyhappened.com/wrh_9-11_index.html http://www.st911.org/ - Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.911inplanesite.com/ - DVD/Video production of some of the most damning evidence surrounding the attack on the Pentagon centers about substantial and incontrovertible v

Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

I own a copy of . No matter what your position or level of interest, I recommend you rent or buy this before considering acknowledging that.. On 5/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Research resources: ttp://whatreallyhappened.com/wrh_9-11

Re: [Full-disclosure] Scientists Call Diebold Security Flaw 'Worst Ever'

lsi wrote: [I don't agree with the Professor, when he asserts that the best treatment for this problem is denial. I suggest that the best treatment for this problem is dissemination, far and wide, so that the broadest range of pressures is brought to bear. - Stu] http://www.commondreams.org

Re: [Full-disclosure] Scientists Call Diebold Security Flaw 'Worst Ever'

I love the suggestion that the "probability for exploiting this vulnerability to install unauthorized software that could affect an election is considered low." Does low mean perhaps one-in-a-million? Hmm, how many registered voters are there in the country? Sheesh! --- lsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

[Full-disclosure] RE: How secure is software X?

David, One thing you have to keep in mind is that a lot of things are incredibly variable when dealing with this subject. For instance, suppose you want to ensure that the URI in a web server is not overflowable. So you test with something like GET /[A x 4096] HTTP/1.1 Host: foobar.com Co

[Full-disclosure] Multiple vulnerabilities in Raydium rev 309

### Luigi Auriemma Application: Raydium http://raydium.org Versions: <= SVN revision 309 (newer versions can be vulnerable to some of the bugs which are

[Full-disclosure] Buffer-overflow and NULL pointer crash in Genecys 0.2

### Luigi Auriemma Application: Genecys http://www.genecys.org Versions: <= 0.2 and current CVS Platforms:*nix and *BSD Bugs: A] tell_player_surr_changes buffer-overflo

[Full-disclosure] Server crash in Empire 4.3.2

### Luigi Auriemma Application: Empire http://www.wolfpackempire.com http://sourceforge.net/projects/empserver Versions: <= 4.3.2 Platforms:Windows, *nix, *BSD an

[Full-disclosure] Multiple vulnerabilities in Outgun 1.0.3 bot 2

### Luigi Auriemma Application: Outgun http://koti.mbnet.fi/outgun/ Versions: <= 1.0.3 bot 2 Platforms:Windows, *nix, *BSD and more Bugs: A] data_file_request buffer-ov

[Full-disclosure] Socket unreachable in GNUnet rev 2780

### Luigi Auriemma Application: GNUnet http://www.gnunet.org Versions: <= 0.7.0d and revision 2780 Platforms:Windows, *nix, *BSD, Mac and more Bug: UDP socket unreacha

[Full-disclosure] Re: How secure is software X?

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:59:17AM +0100, David Litchfield wrote: > How secure is software X? > > At least as secure as Vulnerability Assessment Assurance Level P; or Q or > R. Well, that's what I think we should be able to say. What we need is an > open standard, that has been agreed upon by re

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:152868] Updated tetex packages fix security issues

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated tetex packages fix security issues Advisory ID: FLSA:152868 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords:

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:152898] Updated emacs packages fix a security issue

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated emacs packages fix a security issue Advisory ID: FLSA:152898 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords:

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:152904] Updated ncpfs package fixes security issues

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated ncpfs package fixes security issues Advisory ID: FLSA:152904 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords:

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:152923] Updated xloadimage package fixes security issues

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated xloadimage package fixes security issues Advisory ID: FLSA:152923 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:164512] Updated fetchmail packages fix security issues

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated fetchmail packages fix security issues Advisory ID: FLSA:164512 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords:

[Full-disclosure] [FLSA-2006:185355] Updated gnupg package fixes security issues

- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated gnupg package fixes security issues Advisory ID: FLSA:185355 Issue date:2006-05-12 Product: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core Keywords: