[Full-Disclosure] locator exploit

From: Dave Aitel (dave@immunitysec.com)
Date: 02/01/03

  • Next message: Douglas F. Calvert: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!" 
    From: Dave Aitel <dave@immunitysec.com>
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com, full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com, bugtraq@securityfocus.com, vuln-dev@securityfocus.com, vulndiscuss@vulnwatch.org, NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:57:06 -0500

    So after writing the RPC locator exploit, I noticed that the service
    is not actually vulnerable until it has been initialized
    properly. Does anyone have any more information on how often and when
    this service is intialized (as opposed to simply started)?

    Here is tethereal output illustrating an uninitialized locator service:
    192.168.1.101 -> 192.168.1.100 DCERPC Bind: call_id: 5 UUID:
    e33c0cc4-0482-101a-bc0c-02608c6ba218 ver 1.0
    192.168.1.100 -> 192.168.1.101 DCERPC Bind_ack: call_id: 5 Provider
    rejection, reason: Abstract syntax not supported

    In my testing environment this is the state of the locator service until
    a local user binds to it to begin a lookup.

    Other than this, the RPC Locator Service exploit is available as a
    CANVAS module. (http://www.immunitysec.com/CANVAS/)

    -dave

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

    Relevant Pages

    • locator exploit
      ... So after writing the RPC locator exploit, ... reason: Abstract syntax not supported ...
      (NT-Bugtraq)
    • locator exploit
      ... So after writing the RPC locator exploit, ... reason: Abstract syntax not supported ...
      (Vuln-Dev)
    • locator exploit
      ... So after writing the RPC locator exploit, ... reason: Abstract syntax not supported ...
      (Bugtraq)