On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:58:13 PDT, Steve Friedl said:
> myself. What he said was that they *have not been* publicly exploited,
> which is to say: there aren't any known public exploits in the wild.
>
> Christopher's words match the titling on the slides:
>
> Publicly Disclosed: No
> Pu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:38:26 EDT, Dave Aitel said:
> Hahah. Well, we released an exploit for mqsvc a few minutes after the
> advisories came out. . .
Damn, you downloaded the patch and reverse engineered an exploit in a few
minutes flat? Guess you proved Dave Aucsmith was 100% right, huh? ;)
(
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:24:17PM -0400, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
> Wow... so, I'm listening to the webcast while doing my work today. I just
> heard him (the male presenter) say (three times now) that because some of
> the vulnerabilities have *not been publicly disclosed* that they are *not
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
Wow... so, I'm listening to the webcast while doing my work today. I just
heard him (the male presenter) say (three times now) that because some of
the vulnerabilities have *not been publicly disclosed* that they are *not
publicly exploitable*.
*OMFG*.
MS exploit mott
Hahah. Well, we released an exploit for mqsvc a few minutes after the
advisories came out. . .
Dave Aitel
Immunity, Inc.
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
Wow... so, I'm listening to the webcast while doing my work today. I
just heard him (the male presenter) say (three times now) that because
some o
Wow... so, I'm listening to the webcast while doing my work today. I just heard him (the male presenter) say (three times now) that because some of the vulnerabilities have not been publicly disclosed that they are
not publicly exploitable.
OMFG.-- ME2___
