Re: Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector
From: Ng Pheng Siong (ngps@post1.com)
Date: 02/18/01
- Next message: Jan Conrad: "Re: Why does openssh protocol default to 2?"
- Previous message: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group: "Re: Tripwire 2.3 Linux"
- In reply to: Hiroaki Etoh: "Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Next in thread: Kris Kennaway: "Re: Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Reply: Kris Kennaway: "Re: Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:10:05 +0800 From: Ng Pheng Siong <ngps@post1.com> To: Hiroaki Etoh <etoh@trl.ibm.co.jp>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:26:25PM +0900, Hiroaki Etoh wrote:
> We confirmed the protected system blocked the bind TSIG exploit which is
> announced from CERT, 31 Jan, 2001.
Hmmm, is an exploit in the wild? Are servers being probed actively?
I've been hearing people say no exploit has turned up yet.
Thanks.
-- Ng Pheng Siong <ngps@post1.com> * http://www.post1.com/home/ngps To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Jan Conrad: "Re: Why does openssh protocol default to 2?"
- Previous message: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group: "Re: Tripwire 2.3 Linux"
- In reply to: Hiroaki Etoh: "Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Next in thread: Kris Kennaway: "Re: Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Reply: Kris Kennaway: "Re: Base system with gcc stack-smashing protector"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|