Hi Brian
Sit down sometime inside a wireless ISPs area and run
kismet. You can see someone connect to a service via
SSL, then immediately after they purchase something
they check the email. Guess what ? the Credit card #
and address are in that email.
Doesn't take some 15 year veteran of the
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Product: Linux Kernel
Versions: = 2.4.25
Bug: Integer overflow
Impact: Attackers may be able to execute
arbitrary code with kernel-level
privileges.
Risk: High
Date: May
No lockup on 6.0.3790 just the usual timeout period while it tries to get
\\test\test
It's just guessing you tried the wrong direction slashies.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:08 PM
Hi Mr Coffee
Im using this venue to influence several wireless ISPs
to use WEP
They claim the internet is insecure anyway so they
wont use it.
I do understand the implications but yes wireless is
totally legal to eavesdrop.
The bottom 6 channels run on HAM frequencies and that
is specifically
Yup.
I do it all the time.
Management is simply not interested in providing a test network. I can't
even seem to scrounge a couple of desktop-class machines most of the
time.
It's pathetic, but it's the way that many companies operate.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
waste not your time, this is merely another plonker.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Al Reust wrote:
I would think that you would at least take the time to correct your
signature line. It would tend add a bit more credence.
Quote from below
and become part of our reearch team!
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 12:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're fast approaching the point where a site can't do anything resembling a
reasonable testing process and complete it before the worm arrives.
I think we're getting close to the point where we realize that patches
and virus signatures and
I agree with Brian. I feel that merchants sending information through
email is irresponsible and this is a customer service issue.
We have online ordering and do not send sensitive data via email. None
of the merchants that I have made online purchases with recently have
done this either.
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Alerta Redsegura wrote:
In your example, if a stranger gives you a chocolate bar, it is going to be
a loss for you? On the contrary, you may gain weight! :)
... or you may gain glass splinters or razor blades. Do
Kurt,
I understand. I just left the private sector. The
best I could get the IT folks to do was to roll the
patches out on less critical systems first. However,
even that didn't keep things from happening w/ regards
to SQL Server...one issue was traced back (by
Microsoft, no less) to a hotfix.
In some states it is illegal to intercept any communication without both parties
knowledge. This is true of wired or wireless communications. Be it a chat session or
an online order process. In the state of Washington (my home state) intercepting this
communication could be a felony. So at
I have taken that route myself - I did it first on my NT4 print server,
then (ye gods!) on my spare NT4 BDC, then on my small SQL server, then
on my ERP and CRM systems, then on my other DCs, my Exchange box and my
other production servers.
Sweating bullets the whole time, and making sure that my
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 13:33, D B wrote:
All transactions done via secure websites are secure,
No, they are not. It's just harder to intercept the data.
A wired internet connection
limits the number of people who have access to this
data simply by the nature of the internet putting it
within
Hi Frank
Tis a multiple faceted thing
The one point it can be addresssed for everyone is at
the wireless AP, thus I would conclude it is their
responsibility.
Im reasonably sure a jury would follow suit,
especially when they find out raising the bar to limit
this would take entering a password
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 16:15, D B wrote:
The level of knowledge it takes to penetrate a SSL
style transaction puts it beyond most peoples scope of
abilities
Agreed. But the blanket statement secure [ssl implied] websites are
secure is just not correct.
[...] and on a switched network odds are
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:26 PM -0700 Schmidt, Michael R.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In some states it is illegal to intercept any communication without both
parties knowledge. This is true of wired or wireless communications. Be
it a chat session or an online order process. In the state
--- Frank Knobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 13:33, D B wrote:
All transactions done via secure websites are
secure,
No, they are not. It's just harder to intercept the
data.
The level of knowledge it takes to penetrate a SSL
style transaction puts it beyond most
WEP will not help you in this situation, since the same key will be
assigned to every client, making it virtually a protected hub.
What you need to do is to persuade your ISPis to implement per-session
key, possible solution WPA+Radius.
cheers,
kos
--
Respectfully,
Konstantin V. Gavrilenko
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:58:56PM +0100, Shaun Colley wrote:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Product: Linux Kernel
Versions: = 2.4.25
Strictly speaking, 2.4.23-pre5 until 2.4.26.
Bug: Integer overflow
Impact: Attackers may be able to
Hey,
in IRC, the following snippet of source code was just pasted -
allegedly, it is a PoC for Stefan Esser's NetBSD advisory. Anyone with a
NetBSD system who can confirm or falsify this?
--KA-SNIP--
#include stdio.h
#include sys/ioctl.h
#include fcntl.h
#include sys/systrace.h
#define
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:20, D B wrote:
[...] Guess what ? the Credit card #
and address are in that email.
The ones I get have several in them. It's again a blanket statement
you make.
Besides, I think you're confusing web sites operators/developers with
{wired|wireless} ISPs.
Cheers,
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:16 PM -0400 Sean Milheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However there is also pop3s and imaps.
I make pop3s and imaps available for email users as well as the unencrypted
versions. When I tell somebody how to setup their account I tell them that
they should use the
Nothing Special, just a local overflow issue:
Fluffy, the black security kat presents:
Surfboard httpd local overflows
Problem Description:
Due to lazy programmer, fluffy can exploit several flaws in surfboard httpd to gain
new shell, yippee.
Technical Details:
I think that part of the evolution is to lock people who create these things up for a
*very* long time. It will deter the script kittens when they start to find that their
computers are confiscated and their parents homes are sold to pay for the loss
incurred by there stupidity. The real
On Tuesday 11 May 2004 20:33, D B wrote:
I'm not real sure how to post this, nor am I sure of
the scope. I am still learning about computers.
I'm not sure this is the right list for you. But while we're here...
All transactions done via secure websites are secure,
however the auto mailing
On Tuesday 11 May 2004 21:20, D B wrote:
Hi Brian
Sit down sometime inside a wireless ISPs area and run
kismet. You can see someone connect to a service via
SSL, then immediately after they purchase something
they check the email. Guess what ? the Credit card #
and address are in that
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:15, D B wrote:
--- Frank Knobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 13:33, D B wrote:
All transactions done via secure websites are
secure,
No, they are not. It's just harder to intercept the
data.
The level of knowledge it takes to penetrate a
On Wednesday 12 May 2004 00:08, Jeff Workman wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:16 PM -0400 Sean Milheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However there is also pop3s and imaps.
I make pop3s and imaps available for email users as well as the unencrypted
versions. When I tell somebody how to setup
On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:34:08 CDT, Frank Knobbe said:
Besides, I think you're confusing web sites operators/developers with
{wired|wireless} ISPs.
I think his point was that the *majority* of *users* will confuse the
two as well, and end up making poor decisions based on that.
Yes, it's pretty
Folks. WEP is POINTLESS for public access points. You have to share the
password. Let's see locally:
Coffee shop #1 has Telus hotspot (local telco), no WEP, SSL gateway
redirect, plug your CC in and buy access. Login through SSL encryped web
site to access. Not sure how access is enforced
Hi Brian
Sit down sometime inside a wireless ISPs area and run kismet.
You can see someone connect to a service via SSL, then
immediately after they purchase something they check the
email. Guess what ? the Credit card # and address are in that email.
Dan
If you're doing
Dan,
Your reasoning is quite skewed. Yes wireless ISP's should have
encryption and most do. It is very poor accounting and business
procedures to let everyoune on your network and use it for free. Unless
maybe you are thinking of a WAP at a coffee house.
However saying that wireless ISP's are
there is a russian saying:
If the party gets that mad, cranch the last gurkin
For a less paranoid of you, who still believe that wep is secure enough
solution. We maintain a complimentary site for our book on wireless
hacking, that has a categorised collection of tools for wireless
penetration
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:42:33PM -0500, Frank Knobbe wrote:
Sooner or later, individuals will find the answer. It's evolution in the
digital world.
It's an arms race.
It will never end.
There is no ultimate answer.
Each answer becomes penultimate, then penpenultimate, and so on.
Evolution
CLIENT_OPTIONS(`Family=inet, Address=0.0.0.0, M=h')
to your .mc file (the M=h causes it to use the interface name rather
than the host hame on the ELHO).
Oh, and that neither address has a workable in-addr.arpa PTR.. ;)
Saw an interesting spam the other day .. using a multicast
Anyone aware of any vulnerabilities/exploits with the NTP protocol?
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hi folks!
Is ther a way to remove Sasser without downloading a full av-software?
Yours, Marcel
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Tested with IE 6.0.2800.1106, SP1 all patches on Win2k 5.00.2195 SP4, all
patches (up to 11-05-2004)
I explored this bug: it looks like a simple DoS, impact low. Further testing
might provide a way to get more out of this, like remote command execution,
but I doubt it.
Detailed technical comments
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:37 +0200, Maarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Who, in their right minds, will read their email anyhow over an unencrypted
wireless link ? That's asking for trouble, ie. information-leakage.
The 99.98% of *real* *users* who are so clueless as to not *know* that it's a
Everyone is so busy trying to outgeek the other they
are missing the issue.
An 8 year old with a laptop who downloads netstumbler
could read peoples emails with no difficulty from an
ISP who offers no encryption ( god knows that 8 yr old
can kick my ass on a video game )
My main issue is
Very funny FAKE advisory. Especially funny because bugtraq let it through
while the real NetBSD local root is held back...
Stefan Esser
--
--
Stefan Esser[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 17:01, amilabs wrote:
I have been researchign the wisp industry and I am planning to start one
also. I assure you that most use some form of authentiction and enctyption.
I would be very bad business to leave it open not only for hacking and dos,
but also for users
On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:02:30 PDT, Schmidt, Michael R. said:
The consequences need to be severe enough. In order to accomplish that our
infrastructure has got to support the basic ability to find people who cause
problems. Anonymity is not an option.
You've got this totally ass-backwards.
Gentlemen,
Had a flash in the pan abnormality with an
installation of Officescan.
Installed and configure as per normal with IIS
frontend listening on TCP 80 (standard configuration), when you configure it
like this and hit the login screen with a web browser (I used IE6, and I
believeit was
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 20:50, Michael Gargiullo wrote:
If it's wireless... it's more then likely wide open. Do I run wireless
at home...yup... Am I too lazy to run WEP...yup. So I run my wireless
gear in the DMZ
Hmmm.
... and chalked my sidewalk.
So has everyone else, as I may have as
-Forwarded Message-
From: Maarten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Wireless ISPs
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 02:27:41 +0200
On Wednesday 12 May 2004 00:08, Jeff Workman wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:16 PM -0400 Sean Milheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new or old?
-KF
Dante wrote:
Anyone aware of any vulnerabilities/exploits with the NTP protocol?
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
___
On May 11, 2004, at 17:24, Kurt Seifried wrote:
Folks. WEP is POINTLESS for public access points.
s/ for.*//
WEP/WPA/LEAP/802.1x and anything else which puts trust at the network
level are close[1] to snake-oil - even if they actually worked as
promised the only thing you get is a false sense
-Original Message-
From: D B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:32 AM
To: Kurt Seifried
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Wireless ISPs
Everyone is so busy trying to outgeek the other they are
missing the issue.
An 8 year old
From the PoV of security, yes, putting WEP in does raise the bar a
little.
However, from the Product Mgt PoV of a WISP (having dealt with them in
one of my previous companies):
The claim about ...the internet is insecure anyway so they wont use it
is baloney.
The real fact of the matter WISPs
Just to clarify, this advisory does not involve either of the two
vulnerabilities that I discovered over a year ago now that still remain
unpatched. The one bug is a local root on Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD,
OpenBSD, and Mac OS X, and any other OS systrace is ported to in the
future. The other
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 00:50, Michal Zalewski wrote:
R = E x p
R = Risk
E = event
p = probability of the event happening
If we must toy with bogus marketspeak equations, shouldn't E - at the
very least - numerically correspond to the consequences (loss?) caused by
an event, rather
On Monday 10 May 2004 22:46, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
... or you may gain glass splinters or razor blades. Do -you- trust
everything that random strangers give you?
Maybe we should all stay indoors in case we get hit on the head by a meteor,
or get knocked over by a car.
It's all
Hi!
Try www.google.com. This should usually be the best start for every
informatics engineering student.
Cheers,
Oliver
Hi,
My name is Daniele.
I'm a student of Informatic Engineering at Politecnico of Torino in Italy.
I make a study about the network's security, can you tell me a link
Michal Zalewski wrote:
If we must toy with bogus marketspeak equations, shouldn't E - at the
very least - numerically correspond to the consequences (loss?) caused by
an event, rather than being an event itself?
Otherwise, my risk R of getting a bar of chocolate from a stranger is
0.001 *
Dear Rafel Ivgi, The-Insider,
No crash on 6.0.2800.
--Monday, May 10, 2004, 10:27:40 PM, you wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
RITI msxml3.dll crashes after refreshing a page which contains inside a
RITI link/value
RITI For Example : Ref href = /
RITI This is due to a parsing error in msxml3.dll.
Michael,
To quote Morpheus...welcome to the desert of the
real.
Perhaps more appropriately...to quote Neo...There is
no spoon.
How does the industry calcuate [sic] loss? Yes,
that's a very interesting question. Removing a script
mapping from IIS at install time as part of a
configuration
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 502-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
May 11th, 2004
193.x.x.x isnt internal,,, is it?
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 12:16 PM +0200 fd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd remove something from the mailer:
Received: from [192.168.195.2] ([193.7.145.26])
Why? Not all of us care about disclosing internal IP addresses. :)
-J
--
Jeff
Hello Al,
* Al Reust [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-05-11 14:45]:
I would think that you would at least take the time to correct your
signature line.
My signature is ok, i think you text width is to low.
It would tend add a bit more credence.
what does it have dto do with credence? id dont
How about when Micro$oft releases a bundled patch (cough cough MS04-011) to
fix several bugs and security holes (supposedly to help minimize loss from
these bugs and worms) only to find out that the patch itself has broken just
as many services as it fixed, taking down one's server for a few
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Outlook 2003 the premier mail client from the company
called 'Microsoft' certainly appears to have a lot of security
features built into it. Cursory examination shows excellent
thought into 'spam' containment, 'security' consideration and
many other little 'things'.
Clint...
Two words...testing process. What happened to that?
Don't tell me you're installing patches directly to
production systems...
--- Clint Bodungen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about when Micro$oft releases a bundled patch
(cough cough MS04-011) to
fix several bugs and security holes
I am trying to find information on a vulnerability that I found at
securityfocus. Here is the URL for all the information...
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/10301/info/
http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retrieve.pl?doc=fsalert%2F57555
I am confused, being a semi-newbie, how this can be a
How about when Micro$oft releases a bundled patch (cough cough MS04-011) to
fix several bugs and security holes (supposedly to help minimize loss from
these bugs and worms) only to find out that the patch itself has broken just
as many services as it fixed, taking down one's server for a few
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:34:19PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
193.x.x.x isnt internal,,, is it?
No, but 192.168.195.2 is :)
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 12:16 PM +0200 fd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd remove something from the mailer:
Received: from [192.168.195.2] ([193.7.145.26])
--
AFAIK, Internal IP addresses are limited to10.0.0.0 -
10.255.255.255172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255192.168.0.0 -
192.168.255.255(RFC 1918)There is also a range of IPs for automatic private
addressing:169.254.0.0 -169.254.255.255(RFC 3330)
Windows uses it for automatic TCP/IP addressing without a
On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:30:46 BST, Jos Osborne [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How about when Micro$oft releases a bundled patch (cough cough MS04-011) to
fix several bugs and security holes (supposedly to help minimize loss from
these bugs and worms) only to find out that the patch itself has broken
Ah I figured I'd get a few flames without clarifying that I was speaking
through empathy for the clueless.
No, I wasn't referring to myself directly. Unfortunately, many companies
out
there lose money for that very reason though (was my point). They blindly
trust
M$ and its updates and just go
I am confused, being a newblet, how this can be a vulnerability
without an exploit. Is it just that Sun does not want to admit that
there is an exploit?
It's a vulnerability because it's exploitable. There's no known exploit
(according to securityfocus.com) because there's no widely
On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:34:19 BST, Rob Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
193.x.x.x isnt internal,,, is it?
I'd remove something from the mailer:
Received: from [192.168.195.2] ([193.7.145.26])
Of course, that line was added by the system that received the mail *FROM*
193.7.145.26.. About
On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:37:30 PDT, Harlan Carvey said:
Two words...testing process. What happened to that?
Don't tell me you're installing patches directly to
production systems...
And three words in return: time till worm.
We're fast approaching the point where a site can't do anything
The following code creates a link that causes Microsoft Internet Explorer to
lock up. Restarting IE is required after clicking on the link.
A HREF=//test/testLock up Internet Explorer/A
The form of the link just has to be //*/* as far as I tried it. The IE
version I used was
On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:19:38 EDT, Mark W. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am confused, being a semi-newbie, how this can be a vulnerability
without an exploit. Is it just that Sun does not want to admit that
there is an exploit? Does anyone have any more information on this that
they can
Win 2K
SP1
IE, Help/About says the following
Update Versions:; SP1; Q837009; Q832894; Q831167
WinMSD reports the following
OS Name Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Version 5.0.2195 Service Pack 4 Build 2195
IE
Version 6.0.2800.1106
Build 62800.1106
LanguageEnglish (United States)
At 06:44 PM 5/11/2004 +0200, Anders B Jansson wrote:
If you take you car for a drive, and is killed by a drunk driver, the
drunk is to blame, even if you didn't wear your seatbelt.
Can we move this sort of thing over to Bad-Analogies, please?
m5x
___
I'm not real sure how to post this, nor am I sure of
the scope. I am still learning about computers.
All transactions done via secure websites are secure,
however the auto mailing feature to confirm orders
sometimes contains sensitive data. When the customer
is on a wireless connection, be it
So let's say (hypothetically) someone hacks a
company's network. Let's say
the hack is internal (as opposed to external). The
company detects the
hack (let's say) and runs down to the suspected
cubicle and ...does what?
Well, if they're smart they have an in-house team
(or outside
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gentoo Linux Security Advisory GLSA 200405-03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
79 matches
Mail list logo
