You might want to drop Todd Sabin a note at Razor Bindview and ask him. He's the one that apparently exposed the potential for other ports (137, 445, 539). My expeirences with Todd over the years is that he rarely discloses a potential for vulnerabilty unless there is a reason. And, he rarely plays games.
But, then - everyone gets bored now and again.... -rtk -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joey Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 9:02 PM To: Anthony Clark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cox is blocking port 135 - off topic I don't think DCOM is used on any other port besides 135. When i disabled dcom using dcomcnfg.exe, the only port that stopped listening was 135. and for the specifics for how the buffer overflow works(http://www.lsd-pl.net/special.html) - "In a result of implementation error in a function responsible for instantiation of DCOM objects, remote attackers can obtain remote access to vulnerable systems." People claim that the same buffer overflow works on the SMB port(445) which is an entirely different service, but can they prove it? --- Anthony Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right.. > > /* Windows 2003 <= remote RPC DCOM exploit > * Coded by .:[oc192.us]:. Security > * Modified by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * > * Features: > * > * -d destination host to attack. > * > * -p for port selection as exploit works on ports other than > 135(139,445,539 etc) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
