bugtraq - RE: Re[2]: Solaris telnet vulnberability

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]

Message-ID: <48B5766D97DD9A4A9057D4D13B21283902D6531A@VS2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:10:34 -0700
From: "Evans, Thomas" <ttevans@...kcorp.net>
To: <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network?

For some commentary on this issue, this is one man's thoughts.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0602.html#16

Tom

Hawk Corporation
ttevans@...kcorp.net
440-528-4045 Direct
440-498-2276 x 4045
Cell: 440-669-2526
Fax: 917-464-7241

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Reed [mailto:avalon@...igula.anu.edu.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:49 AM
To: Thierry@...ler.lu
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your
network?

In some mail from Thierry Zoller, sie said:
> 
> CDSC>  real back doors are better
> I like that tautologie, "real backdoors", what makes a backdoor more
> real than another one ? Is it the coolness, the stealth ? Or is it
> simply the fact that it gives back door access ?

How about putting a backdoor into your C compiler such that it
generates "special code" when it recognises it is compiling
/bin/login that allows special access?

That doesn't show up in any code audit of /bin/login...

so you think about auditting the code that makes up the compiler..

where does the executable for that come from...

and so on back.