it's clean :-)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Rutledge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia: Fool Disclosure
Anyone check this image for GDI+ exploit? lol
-Michael
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 1
just a quick comment (unfortunately I don't
have time to give a more complete comment and
I still haven't had a chance to update my write up
on this GDI+ bug)...
some of those exploits have misleading comments...
they talk about overwriting PEB's lock routine function
pointer, but this isn't wha
The advisory seems to miss a few things...
Here's a small paper I started to put together
to fill in the blanks (and then explain how
everything fits together). It's by no means
complete (as a metter of fact, it's barely
started, but still wanted to mention a few
things not covered by the advisory)
This is simply a false positive (in your case).
I presume you have Snort running inside of your
network, which means that you are going to see
a lot of Microsoft networking traffic where
IPC$ share access is a common thing. You need
to make sure you have the $EXTERNAL_NET variable
set properly, so
You are probably talking about BHODemon,
which can be found at http://www.definitivesolutions.com/bhodemon.htm .
Kyle
-Original Message-
From: Todd Towles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:00 AM
To: 'Rmuge NineFive '; 'Disclosure Full'
Subject: RE: Re: [Full-Disclosu
Well, Juliano Rizzo provided a great technical description for the
vulnerability,
but there's more he didn't talk about..., so I put together this paper...
<>
Enjoy,
kcq
ms_ssl_pct.pdf
Description: Binary data
Are you saying that unless there's an exploit
that gives you access to the target machine
your company wouldn't patch (even if there's
an exploit that crashes the target)?
I don't know what company that was, but I'm
glad I'm not working for them... Ignoring DoS
exploits is irresponsible... to say
Having proof of concept code is always valuable
(and the sooner the better),
but I question releasing exploits that execute code
on the target machine. Having a DoS PoC is enough...
The legitimate pentesters will be able to modify the
PoC to execute code on the target while, at the same
time, the
-Original Message-
From: Ami Chayun
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 4/25/04 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft IIS SSL PCT vulnerability
Importance: High
On Saturday 24 April 2004 22:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just thought it would be nice to have a little bit more analy
I just thought it would be nice to have a little bit more analysis for this
vulnerability...
with all these exploits coming out because everybody probably wants to know
how to stop what's out now and what will follow. To do that we need to
understand
how the vulnerability is triggered. Unfortunate
> This is not an unspecified remote DoS.
> This is related to the vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE.
> The reason the exploit caused a DoS is because the OpenSSL
> vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE overlap.
> They both have a length integer overflow. I actually believe that
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
