full-disclosure - Cisco Bug 44020

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: bill.noren at paetec.com (bill.noren@...tec.com)
Subject: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts

That's not what I said - sorry if I wasn't clear; see the highlight below.
I referred to "numbers", not "protocols" on purpose based on what I said
prior to that in the same e-mail.  I'm not a programmer by any stretch of
the imagination but I found it curious that the C library had no kind of
error checking for valid values in the protocol field.  It basically "did
what it was told".  And that may be incredibly obvious to some of you out
there so please be kind!

Cheers,
-Bill (The Code Thief - "Cuz I can't come up with my own")

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Wesley McGrew" <rwm8@....MsState.EDU>
To: <Noren, Bill>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts

> I just don't see how this supports your conclusion that
> there are more protocols that cause failure.

> Wesley

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 bill.noren@...tec.com wrote:

>> witnessed failures on the following port numbers: 53, 55, 77, 103, 309
and
>> 823.  I did NOT get a failure on protocol 46 as someone else here
suggested
>> (do you have details on that?).  Note that if you only count the right
most
>> 8 bits of 309 and 823, they are the same as 53 and 55 respectively so
>> there's probably a couple more numbers that also cause the failure.
                              ____^^^^^^^____