full-disclosure - RE: Re: Bad news on RPC DCOM vulnerability

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]

Message-ID: <3F8A0213.4040000@jackhammer.org>
From: pdt at jackhammer.org (Paul Tinsley)
Subject: RE: Re: Bad news on RPC DCOM vulnerability

Just out of curiosity could you specify why you consider the other one 
"better code?"  The only real differences between the two are that they 
both "fix" the 'cs+=buf;' line differently which is kind of silly to 
bother fixing in the first place, considering the function that line of 
code sits on isn't even called so it should be commented out or deleted 
to start with.  The only other real difference is one decided to use an 
int main and one uses void main.  Well that and the SecurityLab copy 
breaks part of main with the 'if(argc!=2){' check, as it is meant to 
have two different modes of operation, one target or a class B.

Mike Gordon wrote:

> A compiled version is found at 
> _http://www.SecurityLab.ru/_exploits/rpc3.zip_
> But it seems to only crash systems.
>
> Does any one have a clean complile of the "better code" from 
> _http://www.cyberphreak.ch/sploitz/MS03-039.txt_
>