I guess you were referring to this:
http://www.internalmemos.com:8080/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1739
:-P
JJ
--- Chris Sharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well that's clearly not a commercial for Foundstone!
--- Jones, David H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Foundstone has released version 2
, September 11, 2003 9:12 PM
| To: 'Marc Soda'; 'Jerry Heidtke'
| Cc: 'Jones, David H'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Foundstone DCOM Scanner
|
|
|
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Personally I'd look at more than just port 135. Hint?
|
| ISS has in the past
Well that's clearly not a commercial for Foundstone!
They must be jealous jealous that the competitor's
Microsoft vulnerability was actually interesting and
exploitable. Who cares about 'up to 16 bytes of random
memory leakage', I want to remotely 0wn any 'd0ze box.
CS
--- Jones, David H
Except it mistakenly identifies lots of patched systems as still
vulnerable.
I've tested five different free tools today. Here's a summary of my
results:
KB824146Scan.exe
Microsoft's scanner. Many errors and accuracy problems. Basically
unusable.
Command line scanner with flexible input and
.
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Heidtke
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:39 PM
To: Jones, David H; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Foundstone DCOM Scanner
Except it mistakenly identifies lots of patched systems as still
vulnerable.
I've tested five different free
I have come to similar conclusions as well, it's either not accurate,
not easily used in scripts or doesn't scan enough IPs at once. I have
multiple /16s to scan, so I modified the plugin from nessus.
When I say modified I really only changed it to look at port 135, the
rest is the same. I'm
.
- --- someone is this NG
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:full-disclosure-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Soda
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:58 PM
To: Jerry Heidtke
Cc: Jones, David H; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Foundstone DCOM Scanner
I
