Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault
From: Erik Sperling Johansen (erik@sperling.no)Date: 12/29/01
- Previous message: Przemyslaw Frasunek: "Possible problem with GnuPG 1.0.6"
- In reply to: Ugen: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Next in thread: cathedral: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Next in thread: Harmen: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Reply: cathedral: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 14:23:29 +0100 From: "Erik Sperling Johansen" <erik@sperling.no> To: vuln-dev@securityfocus.com
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 28.12.2001 at 12:16 Ugen wrote:
>Seems to me this is becoming a list to discuss various crashes/faults
>in client applications. There are millions of these...
>Their exploitability is very low to none and *imo* such discussion really
For most client applications that holds true, but for an IRC client often left unattended connected to some network, a remote access exploit wouldn't be too farfetched, and I'd say bugs in this particular client application, as well as any other client application where faults could quite easily lead to compromise of a box (e.g. browsers, email clients) fits this list?
-- Erik Sperling Johansen Erik Sperling Johansen http://www.darkfallonline.com
- Previous message: Przemyslaw Frasunek: "Possible problem with GnuPG 1.0.6"
- In reply to: Ugen: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Next in thread: cathedral: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Next in thread: Harmen: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Reply: cathedral: "Re: BitchX Segmentation Fault"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]