<<<
Date Index
>>>
<<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: *BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
To
:
bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject
: Re: *BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
From
: Steve Shockley <
steve.shockley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Date
: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:02:12 -0500
In-reply-to
: <
E1GmoEi-000GfC-00.dead-code-crew-mail-ru@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
List-help
: <
mailto:bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com
>
List-id
: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>
List-post
: <
mailto:bugtraq@securityfocus.com
>
List-subscribe
: <
mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@securityfocus.com
>
List-unsubscribe
: <
mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com
>
Mailing-list
: contact
bugtraq-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
; run by ezmlm
References
: <
E1GmoEi-000GfC-00.dead-code-crew-mail-ru@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
User-agent
: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (Windows/20061113)
Gruzicki Wlodek wrote:
( By default banner hasn't got set suid bit )
Why in the world would someone add a suid bit to banner? Maybe it's a
bug, but you had to work hard to turn it into a vulnerability.
Follow-Ups
:
Re: *BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
From:
admin
References
:
*BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
From:
Gruzicki Wlodek
Prev by Date:
Secunia Research: PassGo SSO Plus Insecure Default Directory Permissions
Next by Date:
Re: Clarifying integer overflows vs. signedness errors
Previous by thread:
*BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
Next by thread:
Re: *BSD banner INT overflow vulnerability
Index(es):
Date
Thread