Anders B Jansson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anders B Jansson wrote:
And stop this silly mumbling about Sasser being created as warning or
heads up.
That's your *interpretation*, not what I said. And this interpretation
is *wrong*.
No, it's not an interpretation, it caused havoc, that's a
Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 12:19:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MS operating systems are the main source of problems for really only
2 reasons:
1) their popularity makes them the most valuable targets
i suggest you stop smoking bad stuff, it is illegal in bulgaria.
I run anti-virus software on my servers... to sluff away the moronic
Windows viruses that clog up my email account. Anti-virus monitors are
a built-in performance drag on the OS. Microsoft says, hey, when we
benchmark against samba, we're almost as fast, and this special case,
we're faster.
Irregardless of blame in relation to Point #1, the matter is moot.
If not for the holes in all Software there would be a lot less need
for IT staff and network support - namely us. I applaud their attempts
to get it right and am thrilled that they don't. Their mistakes provide
more jobs than Bush
Virus prevention solutions are useless when you have careless or
undereducated users. I've seen a secretary who were told not to open
attachments in e-mails in Outlook. When she got another tremendous
birthday card from god-knows-who she obeyed, saved the attachment
to the desktop and then opened
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:33:44 +0200, Ondrej Krajicek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
we're faster. Add on an the required anti-virus program monitoring
packets in and out and watch your performance drop as that eliminates
the whole concept behind DMA as now you have to route all data through
the
IMHO the data are routed through host CPU anyway, DMA is not as clever
to locate the proper file in the proper filesystem on the proper
volume and pass them to the proper network card. You're right that the=20
CPU does not have to process every single bit of each (?) file.
But this could
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:58:35 BST, Jos Osborne [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Well, it's a start. Now you just have to teach them to Right-Click-Scan-for-viruses
in the middle of that...
Of course, the problem here is that if it got to our user's desktop via e-mail,
it didn't get detected by the mail
I don't see why this thread had to take a bitter personal turn, but anyway:
O The only evidence I have to support my claim of being infected with some
presumably unpatched vulnerabilities is the fact that I update my company's
systems on a daily basis for antivirus definitions as well as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Uhmm, irregardless is not a word. The word is regardless.
Irregardless of blame in relation to Point #1, the matter is moot.
If not for the holes in all Software there would be a lot less
need
for IT staff and network support - namely us. I applaud
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:29:04 +0200, Ondrej Krajicek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
We are talking about on-line anti-virus scanning performance, which
is decided mainly by the troughput of the I/O bus and CPU
speed.
SELinux is about mandatory access control.
Exactly.
(from another list about 2
---
Deprotect Security Advisory 20041405
---
Advisory ID : DEPROTECT-20041405
Authors : Christer Oberg, Joel Soderberg
Publish date : 17/05/2004
Application
At 08:42 AM 5/17/2004 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhmm, irregardless is not a word. The word is regardless.
Well, in fact, irregardless *is* an accepted word;
it just has no justification for existence, like
utilize.
m5x
___
Full-Disclosure - We
Hello,
I've just noticed (no, not by using tools which ship with Windows XP[1], thank you
Bill), that
Outlook 2003 binds to UDP port 3088 on all interfaces and listens. Quick Googling for
it
found no useful explanation.
Does anyone know what is this good for? Another open port on my (and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo All!
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Michael Gargiullo wrote:
For years trying to explain this to people... Now if only I could
convince my sister-in-law that she should not ax me a question about an
idear she had...
Sorta depends on which dictionary
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 11:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Uhmm, irregardless is not a word. The word is regardless.
THANK YOU!
For years trying to explain this to people... Now if only I could
convince my sister-in-law that she should not ax me a
{}
{ [waraxe-2004-SA#029]
}
{}
{
hi folks,
i played around with ActiveState's ActivePerl for Win32, and crashed
Perl.exe with the following command:
perl -e $a=A x 256; system($a)
I wonder if this bug isnt known?!? Because system() is a very common
command
Can anybody reproduce this?
I put together a little advisory on my
hey, the tools are inbuilt and do indeed ship with the product:
netstat -ao
works on a windows xp (not 2000) box will show pid. promise!
-- Original Message --
From: Ondrej Krajicek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004
Ondrej Krajicek wrote:
Hello,
I've just noticed (no, not by using tools which ship with Windows XP[1], thank you
Bill), that
Outlook 2003 binds to UDP port 3088 on all interfaces and listens. Quick Googling for
it
found no useful explanation.
Does anyone know what is this good for? Another open
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 11:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Uhmm, irregardless is not a word. The word is regardless.
THANK YOU!
For years trying to explain this to people... Now if only I could
Bill,
I agree with most of your statements below. However, with competing
operating systems such as those you mentioned below plus OS/2 and Apple
Macintosh in the 1980's, the business leaders and consumers chose Windows.
I think people forget that Microsoft must have filled a gap that these
hi folks,
i played around with ActiveState's ActivePerl for Win32, and crashed
Perl.exe with the following command:
perl -e $a=A x 256; system($a)
I wonder if this bug isnt known?!? Because system() is a very common
command
Can anybody reproduce this?
I discovered this vulnerability
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 16:18, Ron DuFresne wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 11:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Uhmm, irregardless is not a word. The word is regardless.
THANK YOU!
For
Monday, May 17, 2004
Technical final step to 'silent delivery and installation of an
executable on the target computer, no client input other than
reading an email' this can be achieved with the highly
touted 'secure-by-default' Outlook 2003 mail client from the
craftsman known as
Shane C. Hage [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When the Internet revolution started, there was no way to predict the
magnitude that a malicious program could have across the world.
We had proof of the effects that a malicious program could have in,
what, 1988 ? Now it's 2004.
--
James Riden /
Hi Shane,
A little correction in history:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Shane C. Hage wrote:
I agree with most of your statements below. However, with competing
operating systems such as those you mentioned below plus OS/2 and Apple
Macintosh in the 1980's, the business leaders and consumers chose
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
___
Mandrakelinux Security Update Advisory
___
Package name: libuser
Advisory ID:
On XP with a netstat -ano I see that svchost is listening on port 1025.
Then running a tasklist -SVC I see which services are running under this
particular svchost.
I have tried disabling most of them and restarting the server service but
port 1025 stays in listening state.
Any ideas why XP is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
___
Mandrakelinux Security Update Advisory
___
Package name: apache
Advisory ID:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
___
Mandrakelinux Security Update Advisory
___
Package name: passwd
Advisory ID:
udp packets can be fired at all ports in that range
www.mindblock.org
insecure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ondrej Krajicek wrote:
Hello,
I've just noticed (no, not by using tools which ship with Windows XP[1], thank you
Bill), that
Outlook 2003 binds to UDP port 3088 on all interfaces and
Can anybody reproduce this?
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\perl -e $a=A x 256; system($a)
'AAA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
__
SGI Security Advisory
Title: IRIX 6.5.24 rpc.mountd infinte loop
Number: 20040503-01-P
Date: May 17, 2004
Reference: SGI BUG
On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:27:28 EDT, Shane C. Hage [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think people forget that Microsoft must have filled a gap that these other
operating systems didn't. How can we blame Microsoft for capitalizing on
the need at the time?
Yes, there was a market niche for monopolistic
Send me money to go toward airfare and hotel for my upcoming trip to
Europe. If I raise $5000 I commit to kicking the kid's head in, or at
least landing one straight on his goolies.
Paypal, whisky, or cash accepted.
Shane
___
Full-Disclosure - We
Well, it dosen't do anything on my system (not sure if non-X86 systems are supposed to be affected...). Anyway, it just returns to the shell.
System running:
Apple MacOSX 10.3.4 [build 7H56]
Chii:~ Tiger$ perl -e $a=A x 256; system($a)
Chii:~ Tiger$
On May 18, 2004, at 00:44, morning_wood
On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:31:50 PDT, MacDougall, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Send me money to go toward airfare and hotel for my upcoming trip to
Europe. If I raise $5000 I commit to kicking the kid's head in, or at
least landing one straight on his goolies.
Hmm.. isn't that supposed to wait
Shane C. Hage to Bill Royds:
I agree with most of your statements below.
Well, actually, he was wrong if you consider the NT family of OSes
starting in about 1993-4 (true, OOTB they were configured to be fully
Win 3.x compatible -- that is, with all security disabled/dumbed down
-- but the
Shane wrote
Send me money to go toward airfare and hotel for my upcoming trip to
Europe. If I raise $5000 I commit to kicking the kid's head in, or at
least landing one straight on his goolies.
Paypal, whisky, or cash accepted.
A honourable fund indeed, may I suggest packing some
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:39:46 +1200, Nick FitzGerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Shane C. Hage to Bill Royds:
I agree with most of your statements below.
Well, actually, he was wrong if you consider the NT family of OSes
starting in about 1993-4 (true, OOTB they were configured to be fully
Reproduced with 5.6.1/win95.
On Mon, 17 May 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:23:56 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Buffer Overflow in ActivePerl ?
hi folks,
i played around with ActiveState's
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Deprotect Advisories wrote:
just for the record.
Disclosure Timeline:
---
03/05/2004: Initial email to vendor.
05/05/2004: Fix committed to cvs. I notified deprotect of the change at
this time, and
Microsoft built an OS for a desk-top stand alone computer that could run
apps like a Word Processor and spreadsheet. This filled a very large niche
for business and they did it very well, powerful enough to get things down,
cheap enough to be affordable. But from NT on, they have tried to extend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Kurt Seifried wrote:
oh my god,
cant we stop this bloody topic finally? It used to be a really good
mailing list but it turns out that soon I have to put in my SPAM list.
You can subscribe to a moderated subset of this
45 matches
Mail list logo
