EXPLORER.EXE goes to 99% CPU usage during preview/rendering of malformed
images.
here the same thing Win2000 with all the service packs and patches
Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq
Is anyone else seeing SYN scans on port 389? Is anyone aware of any
recent exploits for Active Directory? Perhaps using the ASN.1 overflow?
that is also for ldap - maybe explits for ldap are out in the wild for other products
than this one also ?
-aditya
Thanks to everyone who answered my question about the BCC field.
Note: Reply all does not work:).
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
With slightly different senders, yeah. A few are empty, some
come with a little red x
(well, with an image which has to be loaded from the internet), and
some with just a single random character in the body. I have no idea
what they are supposed to accomplish.
*MAY BE* they are spam
No, you're free to reverse engineer Trillian (they might sue you,
though).
Everything is open source if you know assembler.
sue you ? for what ? for finding bugs in their code that they should have done
themselves ? they should be grateful to you and be paying you for your time and
-Original Message-
I thought about this fact as well, but it's typical semantics playing into
PR bull. He said could only think of one instance of an exploit before a
patch was available. However, note that he very carefully sidesteps the
issue by first saying no exploits have existed
What quantum universe is this guy coming from? I don't know the start of
the internet, but the date on the telnet RFC 318 is April 3, 1972 (
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc318.html ) According to Microsoft's own time
line ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx ) Windows
NT
Hallo ASLI,
* ASLI Unur [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 13:50]:
I have a question for it experts. I want to learn if there is any way
of understanding/finding the e-mail addresses at BCC part on an e-mail
that is send to you.
hava a look on the email header and find the bcc line.
regards nico
ike-scan v1.6 has been released. The key changes from v1.5.1 are:
a) The ISAKMP payloads in the returned packet are now decoded;
b) New options --quiet (-q) to prevent payload decoding, and --multiline
(-M) to
split the decode across multiple lines to make it easier to read;
c) Added support
Hallo Chris,
* Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 13:50]:
I have a question for it experts. I want to learn if there is any way of
understanding/finding the e-mail addresses at BCC part on an e-mail that is
send to you.
Thanks for your consideration.
Um, AFAIK the headers are
Hallo Scott,
* Scott Connors [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 13:50]:
I work for a manufacturing company that has many remote sites.
You work for a company with many remote sites and you use a hotmail
account?
no way man.
regards nico
--
Nico Golde nico at ngolde dot de
public key available on:
Coding for NT started in 1988. Product wise NT was released in 1991-1992,
I believe. All of that aside, it does not predate the Internet... that's
rubbish.
-ypwhich
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Ng, Kenneth (US) wrote:
What quantum universe is this guy coming from? I don't know the start of
the
Hi Nico,
lol... which broken mailer are you using? I guess it's time to alert
their security address ;)
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Nico Golde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] a question
hava a look on the email header and find the bcc line.
please tell me this is humor and not a serious suggestion...
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Of course you can see that on the SENDING end ...
Not on the receiving end though ...
-Original Message-
From: Nico Golde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 26 februari 2004 14:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] a question about e-mails
Hallo Chris,
* Chris
On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:35, Nico Golde wrote:
Hallo Chris,
I tested it on my system.
i send a mail to nico and bcc root.
here is the mail header:
snip
Bcc: root
^
here is the bcc line
Hehe.
Well, since you obviously can read hidden BCC headers that we 'normal
Hey, list, can we drop this thread? Aucsmith's an idiot...I think the
Internet world has figured that part out already.
How about this for a thread - Why Microsoft Never Seems to Learn? They
release their crappy software and it gets hacked, then they blame the
community. They allow their
WinZip MIME Parsing Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
iDEFENSE Security Advisory 02.27.04a:
http://www.idefense.com/application/poi/display?id=76type=vulnerabiliti
es
February 27, 2004
I. BACKGROUND
WinZip is an archiving utility for the Microsoft Windows platform
featuring built-in support for CAB
Hi,
He might just preventing the name of his company being displayed.
I would do the same if i did not have elvandar.org,
cheers
--
Kind regards,
Remko Lodder
Elvandar.org/DSINet.org
www.mostly-harmless.nl Dutch community for helping newcomers on the
hackerscene
mrtg.grunn.org Dutch mirror
Maybe they're referring to Windows NT having a heritage of core design
from people who worked on VMS (which does predate the Internet.)
In some mail from Ng, Kenneth (US), sie said:
What quantum universe is this guy coming from? I don't know the start of
the internet, but the date on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sounds like a broken MTA to me.
Nico Golde wrote:
| Hallo Chris,
|
| * Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 13:50]:
|
|I have a question for it experts. I want to learn if there is any way of
|understanding/finding the e-mail addresses at BCC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward W.
Ray
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] And how long have buffer overflows been
around?
Furthermore, the security kernel of the Windows
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:16:43AM -0500, Pamela Patterson wrote:
OK,you tell me who this was bcc'ed to, and I'll believe you. I can't
get the bcc to show in the headers even if I sit at the command line of
the mail server and type mail foo -b bar when both foo and bar are
local addresses. I
There were rumors that the NT kernel was originally called Mica at DEC
and that the code was in fact brought bodily to Microsoft, having
been originally designed to be a VMS followon. If that is true you could
say that the security design was in fact that of VMS V1, which dates
from about 1975,
Microsoft Internet Explorer Cross Frame Scripting Restriction Bypass
iDEFENSE Security Advisory 02.27.04b:
http://www.idefense.com/application/poi/display?id=77type=vulnerabiliti
es
February 27, 2004
I. BACKGROUND
Internet Explorer is a set of core technologies in Microsoft Windows
operating
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:33:27 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There were rumors that the NT kernel was originally called Mica at DEC
and that the code was in fact brought bodily to Microsoft, having
been originally designed to be a VMS followon. If that is true you could
say that the security
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:46AM -0500, randall perry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If there is no solution, there is no problem..
Sounds like M$ public line If there is no patch, there is no exploit...
:-)
--
Chief Gadgeteer
Elegant Innovations
___
OK. Enough is enough. RFC2822, section 3.6.3 Destination Addresses says:
The Bcc: field (where the Bcc means Blind Carbon Copy) contains
addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be
revealed to other recipients of the message. There are three ways in
which
\ -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] And how long have buffer
overflows been around?
Does anyone know if the concept
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=
FreeBSD-SA-04:03.jail Security Advisory
The FreeBSD Project
Topic:
[vulnwatch] Serv-U MDTM Command Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
www.cnhonker.com
Security Advisory
Advisory Name: Serv-U MDTM Command Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Release Date: 02/26/2004
Affected
Multiple issues with Mac OS X AFP client
Background
The standard Apple Filing Protocol[1] (AFP) does not use
encryption to protect transfered data. Login credentials may be sent
in cleartext or protected with one of several different hashed
exchanges or Kerberos[2]. There does not appear
Hi,
Just received an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with an attachment
remove-lsass_tool.exe
Headers:
--
Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt ([192.168.16.2]) by VS2.hdi.tvcabo with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
Thu, 26 Feb
There is no debate, windows is gay - period.
I would run unix even if it was less secure just because I can get stuff
done.
~!D
James P. Saveker wrote:
Some personal thoughts,
Yes indeed it's no secret that Microsoft valued functionality over security
for many years. I think that's how they
At 03:38 PM 2/27/2004 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Go back and re-read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3485972.stm
and ask yourself how serious a company can *really* be about security when
the CTO of their Business Security unit is saying stuff like that.
Sometimes it's difficult for me
James P. Saveker wrote:
Some personal thoughts,
Yes indeed it's no secret that Microsoft valued functionality over security
for many years. I think that's how they are a market leader today. This
model could not be sustained however, as with the advent of exponential
internet growth security
There is no debate, windows is gay - period.
ah! so that's been my problem all this time.
cough troll! cough
-d
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hallo maarten,
* maarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-27 22:28]:
Bcc: root
^
here is the bcc line
Hehe.
Well, since you obviously can read hidden BCC headers that we 'normal folk'
cannot, would you please care to inform me to which BCC adresses THIS message
is sent to
ok i will sacrifice myself in order to show that BCC headers don't get
sended
on the internet, using a RFC compliant mta (postfix in my setup)
Cheers
Greets to nico :)
--
Kind regards,
Remko Lodder
Elvandar.org/DSINet.org
www.mostly-harmless.nl Dutch community for helping newcomers on the
Hallo maarten,
* maarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-27 22:28]:
Bcc: root
^
here is the bcc line
Hehe.
Well, since you obviously can read hidden BCC headers that we 'normal folk'
cannot, would you please care to inform me to which BCC adresses THIS message
is sent to
Anybody else seeing this in their logs lately? I'm only getting it on solaris
machines and wondering if there is some new exploit out there that I haven't
heard about. I'm really getting hammered with these right now.
Dave
___
Full-Disclosure - We
There is no debate, windows is gay - period.
ah! so that's been my problem all this time.
cough troll! cough
-d
Well,
At least Windows can finally get married now. Maybe then it will start thinking a
little about its security...
___
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-27 22:28]:
Hash: SHA1
Sounds like a broken MTA to me.
why?
regards nico
Nico Golde wrote:
| Hallo Chris,
|
| * Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-26 13:50]:
|
|I have a question for it experts. I want to learn if there is any way
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James P. Saveker wrote:
Microsoft has and how poor this is. As everybody subscribing to this list
and similar zone-h, bugtraq etc will know Linux has many warnings posted
also. Yet I rarely hear people talking about that and indeed how it is far
more difficult to keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Nico!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Nico Golde wrote:
Sounds like a broken MTA to me.
why?
regards nico
RFC 2822 Appendix B.1:
1. Each recipient address from a TO, CC, or BCC header field SHOULD
be copied to a RCPT command (generating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to open a discussion about PGP vs. S/MIME .
I've been pondering secure (or at least verifiable) mail lately and I
see these two standards as the main options available at this point.
It seems to me that PGP is the better of the two options
Hi all!
My team created 3 new stuff.
Exploit 4 mydoom infected systems
http://saxonsoft.hu/metalogique/letoltes/mydoomer.zip
MyDoom scanner and exploiter
http://saxonsoft.hu/metalogique/letoltes/mydoomse.tar.gz
BlazingTools Perfect Keylogger Log Dump Linuxra
-Original Message-
From: Tiago Halm
Hi,
Just received an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with an
attachment remove-lsass_tool.exe
You are describing symptoms of W32/Sober.C-mm, a mass-mailing virus.
The email subject lines and body text are variable.
Regards,
Patrick Nolan -
- Original Message -
From: Schmehl, Paul L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] And how long have buffer overflows been
around?
[snip]
Does anyone know if the concept of Windows time exist?
Hallo Dave,
* Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-27 22:28]:
OK,you tell me who this was bcc'ed to, and I'll believe you. I can't
get the bcc to show in the headers even if I sit at the command line of
the mail server and type mail foo -b bar when both foo and bar are
local
I recall a message from earlier today stating an RFC about BCC,
think it was from valdis but not sure (recieved a lot of mail and
deleted the one i mentioned)
Cheers
--
Kind regards,
Remko Lodder
Elvandar.org/DSINet.org
www.mostly-harmless.nl Dutch community for helping newcomers on the
also sprach Tiago Halm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.02.27.2158 +0100]:
Anyone else got this too?
Yes, many times. It's obviously a trojan itself.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invalid/expired pgp subkeys?
also sprach James P. Saveker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.02.27.2115 +0100]:
I do not understand why people knock Microsoft so much in regard to security
today. I regularly hear people talking about how many vulnerability's
Microsoft has and how poor this is.
Because their design is flawed. They
Got access to the attachment
(was blocked by Outlook XP, but after adding a String REG key -
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Outlook\Security\Level1Remo
ve - with value - exe - I got access to the attachment)
Size: 74142 bytes
Executed strings (ANSI and UNICODE) on it, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It probably ought to be stripping those headers out of the email before
sending it. Wouldn't you think so? Kinda defeats the purpose of a
*blind* carbon copy.
Although, as several folks have pointed out, the RFC's don't require
this, so maybe
James Saveker wrote:
snip
Microsoft has in there defence started the trustworthy
computing scheme,
which many would not hesitate to laugh at. However windows
server 2003 does
not by default load unnecessary services.
So MS is doing what UNIX did from the start 20 years ago. As for
UNIX was made to be secure, and now they are adding colours.
No, UNIX* was made to run 'Space Travel'.
(http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html) OpenBSD was made to be secure.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
everyone can read this.
i make the test, i write a mail do the list with bcc to the list.
Chopper -- what part of your Email config is broken, as you have been
shown in several ways already, did you not understand?
Just crawl back under your rock and STFU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Remko!
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Remko Lodder wrote:
I recall a message from earlier today stating an RFC about BCC,
think it was from valdis but not sure (recieved a lot of mail and
deleted the one i mentioned)
I sent it, RFC 2821, Appendix B.1
I hate to feed a troll but I'm going to...
I would run unix even if it was less secure
just because I can get stuff done.
This statement says far more about you and your competance than it does
about any given OS.
And just to get it out there so people don't think they came up with some
which many would not hesitate to laugh at. However windows
server 2003 does not by default load unnecessary services.
So MS is doing what UNIX did from the start 20 years ago.
Sadly, this is in decline in the Linux world;
Most of the nice, friendly, easy to use package management
At 11:53 PM 2/27/2004 +0100, B$H wrote:
http://saxonsoft.hu
Great name!
;-)
m5x
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
I'd like to open a discussion about PGP vs. S/MIME .
I have been waiting for one of these... =)
I've been pondering secure (or at least verifiable) mail lately and I
see these two standards as the main options available at this point.
It seems to me that PGP is the better of the two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Remko!
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Remko Lodder wrote:
I recall a message from earlier today stating an RFC about BCC,
think it was from valdis but not sure (recieved a lot of mail and
deleted the one i mentioned)
Here is another good passage from
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:30:58PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
there are two major products that come out of berkeley: lsd and unix.
we don't believe this to be a coincidence.
-- jeremy s. anderson
(Yeah, it's late Friday
[EMAIL PROTECTED] replied to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The only problem with that theory is that VMS *had* a security design, and
there isn't one in NT. The only design overlap there is that Microsoft got
some of the VMS design team to come on board for Win/NT. NT got stuck with
having to be
I'd like to open a discussion about PGP vs. S/MIME .
I've been pondering secure (or at least verifiable) mail lately and I
see these two standards as the main options available at this point.
It seems to me that PGP is the better of the two options because:
- - cryptographically, it appears more
Folks. This topic has already been beaten to death. Simple fact is:
PGP is hard for most people to use, and required third party software
install. So it doesn't matter much if it's technically superior or not, it
hasn't taken off yet and I don't think it ever will. The web of trust simply
does
Tiago Halm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Size: 74142 bytes
Executed strings (ANSI and UNICODE) on it, but could not find anything
relevant.
Because it is compressed -- at runtime a stub routine decompresses the
bulk of the .EXE file into memory, fixes things up and then starts
normal
attachment: dcacdaccc.zip
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:24:29PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:48:10 MST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
jeremy s. anderson needs a history lesson.
Google sandoz+lsd
It's not about invention, it's about popularization. Both LSD and Unix
certainly
I work for a manufacturing company that has many remote sites.
I am in the US and I have been tasked with performing vulnerability
assessments for about 30 remote sites in Europe, AsiaPac and
South America.
Can anyone recommend a method and set of tools that I can use to do them
On Feb 27, 2004, at 9:24, Chris Adams wrote:
Multiple issues with Mac OS X AFP client
Vendor Response:
None
After some discussion with someone on Apple's product security team it
turns out that I was responsible for the lack of response - my original
notice went to Apple corporate security
--On Friday, February 27, 2004 5:29 PM -0500 Robert Brockway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% apt-get update apt-get upgrade
Want to install apache-ssl?
% apt-get install apache-ssl
All dependencies (including security updates) taken care of.
Yeah you're right, that was hard :)
Try Debian
and now they try to make it secure. UNIX was made to be secure, and
now they are adding colours.
This is not true. UNIX was not made to be secure. Any UNIX security
history book will tell you that.
Just because you run UNIX does not make you immune to attacks. Linux,
with it's world
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:06:05 PST, Jim Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Maybe the patch *is* the exploit? :)
Pre-exploited for your convenience. No longer do you need to wait for some
leet hax0r to do it, just install the patches :)
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
That brings up an interesting question. Does anyone out there think that PGP
web of trusts would be easier if encorporated into something like Orkut or
Friendster?
Obviously, those types of sites would need to evolve (change) it order to more
easily facilitate a trust but it could possibly be
Most worms today that infect machines try to report back to centralized
servers specified by the creator (to upload/download data). The only
problem with this approach is that centralized servers can be shut down to
prevent the spread of the worm and cease information gathering. Now, what
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:18:34PM +1300, Steve Wray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Most of the nice, friendly, easy to use package management
systems (rpm and apt for two) [...]
Don't like the way others do something...
Then don't use them. I don't (where it matters to me).
--
Chief Gadgeteer
Where can i find the details on how to do that?
I am not a guru at this.
What specific agent would you recomend?
be careful about this one,i dont like where this is going. a single wrong file, ( ie
aka a trojan ) could infect all your computers in the net on all the sites and hand
over
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 07:02, Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] wrote:
Where can i find the details on how to do that?
I am not a guru at this.
What specific agent would you recomend?
another way to do it is to send a autorun of VNC server that would allow you to take
control of
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, joe wrote:
And just to get it out there so people don't think they came up with some
surprising news. I am a Windows Guy. Previously I was a DEC RSTS/E guy, a
DEC VAX VMS guy, a Sperry Univac mainframe guy (though only COBOL coding on
punch cards), and a Sparc guy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In my opinion, it would be too easy to create false Webs of Trust
through something like Orkut. I personally have people on my friends
list that I've never actually met in person.
/**/
/* Troy Solo*/
/* [EMAIL
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 22:19, Harry Hoffman wrote:
That brings up an interesting question. Does anyone out there think that PGP
web of trusts would be easier if encorporated into something like Orkut or
Friendster?
wtf?
*
* This thread is dead. It was dead when it was started. It was dead
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] wrote:
Most worms today that infect machines try to report back to centralized
servers specified by the creator (to upload/download data). The only
problem with this approach is that centralized servers can be shut down to
prevent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Last time I checked, Windows Update didn't upgrade third-party software
like apt does.
/**/
/* Troy Solo*/
/* [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
/* Ignotum per Ignotius */
/**/
James F. Wilkus
Linux/Unix just has to be more sercure then Windows..;)
Also as for lame admins.. Yes there are some when it comes to unix/Linux..
However, when the base OS is more secure then Windows it's not as painful
to the rest of us..
-Denis
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James F. Wilkus wrote:
and now
snip
lia HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suck!body=You really suck, here is why insert why hereFlame joe/a
/snip
good one mr. Windows.
joe wrote:
I hate to feed a troll but I'm going to...
I would run unix even if it was less secure
just because I can get stuff done.
This statement
At 07:17 PM 2/27/2004 -0500, James F. Wilkus wrote:
and now they try to make it secure. UNIX was made to be secure, and
I think people are doing a disservice by claiming that linux is
something it is not, or more accurately, generalizing all UNIX's to be
secure.
How many times must we
Hi,
- - cryptographically, it appears more secure (i.e. larger public key
sizes possible)
It's not size that matters, but technique.
Seriously, both protocols support the same encryption methods and key
lengths.
- - it seems to be more widely used
Depending on the community you're looking
Their non confirm / non deny policy kinda makes it difficult to talk
about security stuff anyway...
-KF
Chris Adams wrote:
On Feb 27, 2004, at 9:24, Chris Adams wrote:
Multiple issues with Mac OS X AFP client
Vendor Response:
None
After some discussion with someone on Apple's product
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James F. Wilkus wrote:
and now they try to make it secure. UNIX was made to be secure, and
now they are adding colours.
This is not true. UNIX was not made to be secure. Any UNIX security
history book will tell you that.
Just because you run UNIX does not make you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 451-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Matt Zimmerman
February 27th, 2004
93 matches
Mail list logo
