On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:37:20 -1000, Jason Coombs said:
> > Closing down *most* of these exposures is why the 'rpm' package manager
> > supports using PGP to sign the packages...
>
> You *do* realize that digital signatures can be forged with theft of private
> keys, right?
Yep, fully aware of tha
pdates.
Jason Coombs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:43 AM
To: martin scherer
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft win2003server phone home
On Mon,
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:15:26 +0200, martin scherer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 3. Could it be considered as a security risk to let a newly installed server,
> > request information from an arbitrary server that I have no control over ?
> security in the way that your server might end up gettin
"Mike Garegnani" writes:
> [snip]
> all that was posted was a guid, and not to mention it was a 404 so
> aside from your post showing up somewhere in a log it won't be used or
even
> seen for that matter. but it certainly can be a security issue.
> [snip]
Um, since when did 404's guarantee that da
TECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft win2003server phone home
1. Is this behavior normal for a windows server installation ?
i think that this behavour is normal bcoz as u analyse that session u will
get to know that server is trying to update somethi
RTFM
oliver rochford
- Original Message
From: Gaurav Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: manohar singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft win2003server phone home
Date: 04/08/03 09:44
>
> jeeesus,
>
> where'
xt-24)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Original Message -
From: "manohar singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gaurav Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft win2003server phone home
j
jeeesus,
where's the manager? someone throw these kiddies out
puhleese.
will you read the license agreement to the part where
it talks about the update ?
!
Gaurav Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Is this
behavior normal for a windows server installation ?
i think that this behavour is no
1. Is this behavior normal for
a windows server installation ?
i think that this behavour is normal bcoz as u
analyse that session u will get to know that server is trying to update
something
2. Could this behavior be
considered as a violation of privacy ?
this surely a case of viol
> My question:
> 1. Is this behavior normal for a windows server installation ?
for microsoft? yes.
this behavior can also be seen while installing XP Professional (only one i
tested),
while using netcap or similar programs to sniff packets going in/out of the
network.
> 2. Could this behavior
10 matches
Mail list logo
