[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E19TOPW-0002mF-00@d101.x-mailer.de>
From: a.gietl at e-admin.de (Andreas Gietl)
Subject: Apache 1.3.27 Remote Root 0-Day
Michael <mike-full@...aglobal.net> wrote :
i don't actually think apache could be root-exploited directly, since it has no suid-bit and does usually not run as root. This was why i did not react to it.
Maybe the author wanted to report a new worm that first exploits apache and then does a local-root-exploit.
But i don't believe a direct apache-root-exploit exists, unless apache is misconfigured or using suexec or kind of that.
> Maybe now we can STFU and concentrate on actual disclosure?
> I'm curious as to why there has been no discussion about this apache report.
>
> The poster of this message didnt include any info on the details of the
> problem
> nor an exploit, which leaves us wondering. (The insult was cute though)
>
> This could be some serious isht if indeed it is true.
>
> Can anyone confirm/dispute?
>
>
> -M
>
> --
> . Michael Jastremski
> .............................................................
> .. Network Engineer > Megaglobal Networks > Megaglobal.net
> .......................
> ...... Photographer > Open Photo Project > Openphoto.net
> ........................
> .......... Resident > West Philadelphia > Westphila.net
> ........................
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists