bugtraq - Re: Privacy leak in VeriSign's SiteFinder service #2

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]

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:05:55 -0300
From: "Diego Bitencourt Contezini" <diego@...esul.net>
To: "Marco Ivaldi" <raptor@...eadbeef.info>,
	"Mark Coleman" <markc@...ontown.com>
Cc: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@...puterbytesman.com>,
	"BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@...urityfocus.com>,
	<incidents@...urityfocus.org>
Subject: Re: Privacy leak in VeriSign's SiteFinder service #2


And if someone try to ddos/attack some host that is not really, for example
wlfkqspfqwekalsdkfsdfal.com .
They will not can send a judicial process, will?
After all, would not be sent to their just to some idiot host that they
got..
And, its legally, they match all the hostnames?
For example, if cocacola.com, have there cokacola.com, the same sounds
equal.. they could to process verysign, no?
Any lawyer on the list?
On my point of view its not right.

Diego B. Contezini
(Sorry for my bad english..)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marco Ivaldi" <raptor@...eadbeef.info>
To: "Mark Coleman" <markc@...ontown.com>
Cc: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@...puterbytesman.com>; "BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS.
COM" <BUGTRAQ@...urityfocus.com>; <incidents@...urityfocus.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Privacy leak in VeriSign's SiteFinder service #2


> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mark Coleman wrote:
>
> > TELNET YYAAHHOO.COM 25
> >
> > 220 sitefinder.verisign.com VeriSign mail rejector (Postfix)
> > mail from:source@...oo.com
> > 250 Ok
> > rcpt to:user@...ahhoo.com
> > 550 <unknown[198.252.172.254]>: Client host rejected: The domain you are
> > trying
> > to send mail to does not exist.
> >
> > They could (AND SHOULD) REJECT from the initial connection, but instead
> > ALLOW the TO and FROM fields of the SMTP negotiation to happen.
>
> Moreover, they're still working on this SMTP server. Just one week ago,
> they were running another Postfix-like MTA, with completely different
> behaviour:
>
> root@...rch0:~# telnet kjashfjhshghgfddg.com 25
> Trying 64.94.110.11...
> Connected to kjashfjhshghgfddg.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 snubby1-wcwest Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 ready
> helo foo
> 250 OK
> mail from:test@...t.com
> 250 OK
> rcpt to:nospam@...eadbeef.info
> 250 OK
> data
> 221 snubby1-wcwest Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 closing transmission
> channelConnection closed by foreign host.
>
> What if Verisign is planning to open more similar TCP/IP services on that
> host? What if they're going to further modify the existing ones, to better
> invade individuals' privacy?
>
> :raptor
> -- 
> Marco Ivaldi
> Antifork Research, Inc.   http://0xdeadbeef.info/
> 3B05 C9C5 A2DE C3D7 4233  0394 EF85 2008 DBFD B707
>