>Does anyone have experience with libpcap versus WINPcap from a performance
>standpoint? I don't have packet numbers but I don't want to drop any. I
>know how to use libpcap without the tcp/ip stack but how about WINPcap?
Since winpcap goes thr another layer to the network - it would always be
l
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:16:00 GMT, Jason Coombs said:
> What we really need is click-through contracts for e-mail messages.
>
> Somebody write an RFC, quick.
Already been done. Use a MIME message/external-body rather than an actual
mail body, and have it point to a URL that does the click-through
What we really need is click-through contracts for e-mail messages.
Somebody write an RFC, quick.
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:25:38
To:full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] some interresting project i just
Original: http://castlecops.com/article-5721-nested-0-0.html
In a very interesting turn around for COAST's credibility (and that of the
folks who continue to remain as members), Webroot Software issued a press
release:
http://castlecops.com/article-5719-nested-0-0.html
"Webroot Software announ
J.A. Terranson wrote:
<>
> Now, as for those "Confidentiality notice"s you see on large company email
> systems, where the lowly little luser has no control over what his moronic
> email admin has automatically tagged to the bottom of the email: You DO
> realize that there is absolutely zero case
I tested the buffer overflow on win2003 server
using 253 evil byte for overwrite the eip register
My exploit for testing use
#!/usr/bin/perl
##
#Savant Web Server 3.1 Remote Buffer Overflow Exploit #
# #
#This is
On Friday 04 February 2005 07:14, Oliver Leitner wrote:
> I dunno whats this all of a sudden, but.
>
> 1. dunno what you have against my signature, btw, if you got a better
> idea or a better formulation for it, im open for it.
In general, confidentiality is only expected if you already have an
a
===
Ubuntu Security Notice USN-74-2 February 04, 2005
postfix vulnerability
http://bugs.debian.org/267837
===
A security issue affects the following Ubuntu releases:
Ubuntu 4.
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 07:58 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> I'm not gonna ask the more common question, since I can plainly see the
> answer of "No, I didn't have the money to pay a lawyer to write shit for
> me"...
heh... or just a very cheap one ;)
Cheers,
Frank
Agreement: You are not allowed
J.A. Terranson wrote:
Forgetting for a moment that you cannot bind someone to an agreement just
by having them READ IT, you may want to consider that you also can't bind
them to a secrecy agreement AFTER giving out the "secret". To put that
into English for those who are common-sense-impaired: you
Am Donnerstag, 3. Februar 2005 22:47 schrieb Dan Yefimov:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, qobaiashi wrote:
>
> There's no integer overflow here since there's the test for optlen < 0 in
> linux/net/socket.c
himmelarschundzwirn! you're rite .. i'm sure it wasn't there when i was
lokoing for it :)
...thx
--
I dunno whats this all of a sudden, but.
1. dunno what you have against my signature, btw, if you got a better idea or
a better formulation for it, im open for it.
after all im not the only one with such a signature here or on any other
mailinglist, so why this all of a sudden reaction on it? a
Not only is the agreement at the bottom of this outright silly but the
company is trying to punt "Linux Shell accounts" with an image of a 12
in ibook in the header.
Please don't take this as a Flame take this as constructive criticism
On Feb 2, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Oliver Leitner wrote:
I was just
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Oliver Leitner wrote:
*The single DUMBEST* "agreement" I have ever seen on an email privacy
warning:
> --
> By reading this mail you agree to the following:
>
> using or giving out the email address and any
> other info of the author of this email is strictly forbidden.
> By
well - security forecasts for 2005 may be more interesting in autumn of the
previous year when I've seen some nice figures on sans, secunia, symantec
etc.
however, I can't find those figures again, maybe for obvious reasons, e.g. the
'survival time' has climbed to 21 min from 13 in 2004.
has an
This topic is debated once every 12 months on the firewall-wizards list -
you could check the archives there.
You cannot get a packet in from the outside on PAT (port translated NAT, NAT
overload, etc) to a client that is idle. Actually, that may be a lie given
that there used to be a bunch of cra
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, qobaiashi wrote:
There's no integer overflow here since there's the test for optlen < 0 in
linux/net/socket.c
>
> there exists an integer bug in the ipv6 implementation of the linux kernel.
> (at least in 2.4.20 and 2.6.4 )
> in /linux/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c:
>
>
> int i
Hello,
Last month's hot topic on http://www.securitytrap.com
1, Microsoft: Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for January 2005
URL: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/microsoft/2005/Jan-Mar/.html
2, Incidents: Re: SQL injection ... another attack
URL: http://www.securitytrap.com/mail/inc
===
Ubuntu Security Notice USN-75-1 February 04, 2005
cpio vulnerability
CAN-1999-1572
===
A security issue affects the following Ubuntu releases:
Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog)
well, there are "search programs" for the freenet/entropy network, just look
at the links list within the entropy web gateway (http://127.0.0.1: in
case you didnt change it...)
i havent tried that one yet, might give the client programs a try as soon as
i get them to compile on my FreeBSD 5
===
Ubuntu Security Notice USN-74-1 February 04, 2005
postfix vulnerability
http://bugs.debian.org/267837
===
A security issue affects the following Ubuntu releases:
Ubuntu 4.
Michael Simpson wrote:
so it is basically freenet but running on a different port (8482
rather than 8481)
what's the point
I usually try freenet about once a year have never managed to connect to
anything through it. I've only tried entropy once but it did work, and
the performance wasn't too
22 matches
Mail list logo
