On Dec 15, 2007 2:51 PM, coderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... "I don't think this is a timing attack; it's a side-channel
> attack that exploits the fact that OpenSSL's impact on the branch
> prediction cache leaks information."
someone says to me, "Branch Prediction Analysis side channel att
On Dec 14, 2007 8:22 AM, Gobbles is back <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Quick cheeky posting by unknown gobble member staff over Thomas Ptacek's
> latest Wikipedia absurdness.
PS: Your Homework Assignments
Thomas Ptacek to retract all stupid commentary from world wide web.
examples: "I don't
ALERT ALERT
Quick cheeky posting by unknown gobble member staff over Thomas Ptacek's
latest Wikipedia absurdness. lol ... Finally Symantec has taken notice, and
started to add there own stuff to SF .. FINALLY !!!
http://turkeychargen.blogspot.com
___
Reepex, unlike you we do not subscribe to definitions as set fourth
by such certification. Did you like working for geek squad? ;)
Thanks for reading.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:58:36 -0500 reepex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been following your blog alot and think the idea is really
>awesome
I have been following your blog alot and think the idea is really awesome
but this one line...
On Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM, secreview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> true Ethical Hacker talent.
Was this meant to be humorous? You realize that 'ethical hacker' ( as in the
certification) is a bunch of X
this kid spent many hard hours reading man pages looking for 0day, gives it
to us along with hello world python networking code ( that is incapable of
parsing replies so any unintended behaviour causes exit), and you are going
to bash it? You are probably just jealous you do not have the technical
So a kid posts his first found exploit to every mailing list and you are
going to bash him? If you scare him off or discourage him then we wont get
code and screenshots from his future high-risk 0day.
On Dec 15, 2007 7:29 AM, fabio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wtf? remote exploit? you need an u
wtf? remote exploit? you need an user account and all you get is.. a
command executed by the same user account. Isn't easier just to login on
the box?
CtrlAltCa
kcope wrote:
> Look, it's the Sendmail/postfix the Storybook
>
>
>
> ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
doesnt look remote to me since you need to upload the malicious
.forward file in the home, much a local bug allowing remote exec
rather than a remote bug.
kcope wrote:
> Look, it's the Sendmail/postfix the Storybook
>
>
>
