full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft Windows vulnerability in TCP/IP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2588516)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:20:53 +1100
From: xD 0x41 <secn3t@...il.com>
To: Jon Kertz <jon.kertz@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Microsoft Windows vulnerability in TCP/IP
 Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2588516)

I have said, when the author wants to, and when hes ready to, i am sure he will.


On 12 November 2011 00:54, Jon Kertz <jon.kertz@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, xD 0x41 <secn3t@...il.com> wrote:
>> About the PPS, i think thats a very bad summary of the exploit, 49days
>> to send a packet, my butt.
>> There is many people assuming wrong things, when it can be done with
>> seconds, syscanner would scan a -b class in minutes, remember it only
>> has to find the vulns, gather, then it would break scan, and trigger
>> vuln... so in real world botnet, yes then, with tcpip patchers, like
>> somany ppl i know myself, even use (tcpipz)patcher ) , wich rocks...
>> and it is ONLY one wich actually works, when you maybe modify the src
>> so the sys file, is dropped from within a .cpp file, well thats up to
>> you but thats better way to make it work, this will open
>> sockets/threads, as i could, easily proove with one exe, but, the goal
>> is, to trigger the vuln then exploit it, less than 49days :P , so ,
>> iguess if this exploit, in real form, gathered 2 million hosts over 3
>> nights.. i guessing that the exploit, could possibly be triggered with
>> ONE properly setup packet.. people forget that, a packet is one thing,
>> and a crafted UDP packet, is quite another..
>
> I'd really like to see you actually explain this bug with code. Either
> with a poc or with the disassembly. You seem to act like you know
> what's going on, but so far your description has been off base (from
> what I can make of your writing).
>
> No one cares about paragraphs of speculation and bragging, code or you
> are just another heavy breather in the perv closet of FD.
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/