On 09/28/2014 11:14 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> I thought all of the RFC-descriptions of protocols were taken to be
> statements that "if you do it this way, we think we can inter-operate"
> but at no time to be taken as "right" or "wrong".
Correct. That gave birth to the original "interop" confer
for two asynchronous, otherwise unconnected systems, using TCP/IP there is
a state transition sequence which can be shown to work if you stick to it.
There are also (I believe) corner cases when you send unexpected sequences,
and some of them have known behaviours
in that sense, the question: "doe
On 9/29/2014 00:32, Pete Carah wrote:
For that matter, has the*specification* of tcp/ip been proven to be
"correct" in any complete way?
I find that question in this forum really confusing.
I thought all of the RFC-descriptions of protocols were taken to be
statements that "if you do it this
On 09/28/2014 04:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:06:18 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint, but those are not changes that make the system more
>> vulnerable. They are externalities that may change the likelihood of
>> exploitation of an existing
>My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
Welcome to the club.
>Specifically she is receiving emails for initial>@gmail.com (no dots) when her email address is really
>..@gmail.com (dots).
>
>I don't know if this is a "feature" or a "bug", but either way, it's
>disquieting my wife. (Unhappy
Set up a filter in the GMAIL console to match (pun intended) the "Match"
emails and filter them into their own label. Then, hide that label. Don't
delete them though. You might have a gold mine there. Think of the
comedic relief you could provide others with "
www.My-wife-keeps-getting-sent-pic
On 9/28/14, 10:42 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
Okay ... so someone is sending to the incorrect email address that is a
variant of my wife's GMail address.
The real annoying part is that someone used my wife's email address
(sans dots) as their email ad
I have the same issue and have had it for quite a while. I've met some
great new friends because of it as well!
-Mike
On Sunday, September 28, 2014, Royce Williams
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Grant Taylor >
> wrote:
>
> > My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
> >
> > Specif
On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 22:42 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
> I'm looking for a GMail contact.
> My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
> Specifically she is receiving emails for initial>@gmail.com (no dots) when her email address is really
> ..@gmail.com (dots).
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=addresses+w
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10313?hl=en
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Grant Taylor
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for a GMail contact.
>
> My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
>
> Specifically she is receiving emails for name>@gmail.com (no dots) when her email address is rea
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Grant Taylor
wrote:
> My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
>
> Specifically she is receiving emails for name>@gmail.com (no dots) when her email address is really name>..@gmail.com (dots).
If someone else thinks that the non-dotted email address is thei
Hi,
I'm looking for a GMail contact.
My wife is receiving someone else's emails.
Specifically she is receiving emails for initial>@gmail.com (no dots) when her email address is really
..@gmail.com (dots).
I don't know if this is a "feature" or a "bug", but either way, it's
disquieting my wi
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:06:18 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> >Hopefully, Keith will admit that *THAT* qualifies as a "change" in his
> >book as well. If attackers are coming at you with an updated copy
> >of Metasploit, things have changed
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but those are not changes tha
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:39:15 -0400, William Herrin said:
>
> > The vulnerabilities were there the whole time, but the progression of
> > discovery and dissemination of knowledge about those vulnerabilities
> > makes the systems more vulne
On Sunday, 28 September, 2014 14:47, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:39:15 -0400, William Herrin said:
>> The vulnerabilities were there the whole time, but the progression of
>> discovery and dissemination of knowledge about those vulnerabilities
>> makes the systems more
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 22:50:31 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> If you had been rational about the change to from x86 -> x64 and 32-bit
> userland to 64-bit userland, you would have limited all processes to the same
> per-process address space as they had in the x86 model in order to prevent the
> intr
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:39:15 -0400, William Herrin said:
> The vulnerabilities were there the whole time, but the progression of
> discovery and dissemination of knowledge about those vulnerabilities
> makes the systems more vulnerable. The systems are more vulnerable
> because the rest of the wor
- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Medcalf"
> >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
> >valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> >On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:10:28 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> >
> >> I haven't an example case, but it is theoretically possible.
> >
> >The sendmail setuid
- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Medcalf"
> >The problem is, before it is an entirely correct statement to assert
> >that a zero entropy system never develops new vulnerabilities, you
> >have to expand the boundaries of the "system" to include the entire
> >planet.
>
> Incorrect. The
> My original proposition still holds perfectly:
>
> (1) The vulnerability profile of a system is fixed at system commissioning.
> (2) Vulnerabilities do not get created nor destroyed except through
> implementation of change.
> (3) If there is no change to a system, then there can be no change in
I was contacted by Luca Bruno a couple of months ago regarding the
fastping.c utility that has been included with MRLG for the past 14 years.
It seems that fastping.c is vulnerable to a crafted attack that can cause
remote memory overwrite/corruption.
The fastping.c utility was only used by MRLG i
On Sunday, 28 September, 2014 06:39, Jimmy Hess said:
>On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Keith Medcalf
>wrote:> This is another case where a change was made.
>> If the change had not been made (implement the new kernel) then the
>vulnerability would not have been introduced.
>> The more exampl
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Keith Medcalf
wrote:> This is another case where a change was made.
> If the change had not been made (implement the new kernel) then the
> vulnerability would not have been introduced.
>[...]
> The more examples people think they find, the more it proves my prop
On Sunday, 28 September, 2014 00:39, William Herrin said:
>On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Keith Medcalf
>wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 September, 2014 08:37,Jim Gettys
>>said:
>>>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/gettys
>> ""Familiarity Breeds Contempt: The Honeymoon Effect and
24 matches
Mail list logo
