full-disclosure - Re: Automated SSH login attempts?

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: stefan.janecek at jku.at (Stefan Janecek)
Subject: Re: Automated SSH login attempts?

On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 19:52, dmargoli@...ing.org wrote:
> Stefan Janecek wrote:
> 
> > This does not seem to be a stupid brute force attack, as there is only
> > one login attempt per user. Could it be that the tool tries to exploit
> > some vulnerability in the sshd, and just tries to look harmless by using
> > 'test' and 'guest' as usernames?
> > 
> > The compromised machine was running an old debian woody installation
> > which had not been upgraded for at least one year, the sshd version
> > string says 'OpenSSH_3.6.1p2 Debian 1:3.6.1p2-10'
> 
> Does the Debian machine that was compromised have a ``test'' or 
> ``guest'' username?

No.

> 
> Also, if it wasn't patched in a year, it may still be vulnerable to 
> this: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-24.html

Thanks, I'll have a look at it.

> 
> I would tend to think this isn't a 0day kinda vuln, as if it were, he'd 
> be a lot more successful than he seems (unless we're all rooted and 
> don't even know it). But who can tell?
> 

Yes, agreed - I am also convinced it must be something old, and
shouldn't be dangerous for reasonably administered machines.