'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or?
From: knud_erik højgaard (knudergud@hotmail.com)Date: 07/31/01
- Previous message: John: "Re: WindowMaker bug"
- Next in thread: ___cliff rayman___: "Re: 'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or?"
- Reply: ___cliff rayman___: "Re: 'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "knud_erik højgaard" <knudergud@hotmail.com> To: vuln-dev@securityfocus.com Subject: 'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or? Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:44:48 Message-ID: <F18MC1g1Z7tkjZyKQ1Q0000e7df@hotmail.com>
i was just wondering, maybe someone else is able to shed light on the issue.
scenario:
1 cisco 677 with CBOS 2.3.0
a buncha PC's equipped with various OS'es and a TCP/IP stack.
Ping the cisco router with a packet exactly 65500 bytes in size, and it will
die. Well known and documented bug afaik.
But - what are the differences in the ping command in the following OS'es ?
win95: router doesn't crash
win98: router crashes
winNT: router doesn't crash
win2K: router crashes
Linux: router doesn't crash, tried with hping2, no effect either.
*BSD : router doesn't crash
as you can see the bug can only be triggered by the ping command from win2k.
So now i ask, in my usual novice way.
Whats the difference? why is it there? does the ping command in 98/2k send
'illegal' data along with the packets? or are the others misbehaving? I have
no idea.. maybe you do.
cheers.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
- Previous message: John: "Re: WindowMaker bug"
- Next in thread: ___cliff rayman___: "Re: 'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or?"
- Reply: ___cliff rayman___: "Re: 'non-rfc' compliant ping command in win98/win2k - or?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|