full-disclosure - Re: TCP Hijacking (aka Man-in-the-Middle)

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: <30514.1193427037@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:30:37 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: 3APA3A <3APA3A@...URITY.NNOV.RU>
Cc: Oliver <olivereatsolives@...il.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: TCP Hijacking (aka Man-in-the-Middle)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:03:27 +0400, 3APA3A said:

> I  afraid  you  misunderstanding  or  misinterpreting results of Michael
> Zalewski's  work  (which is, by the way, last real "hack" in the initial
> meaning  of this word in the field of computer security). In most cases,
> you have good probability to guess SN after some number of guesses. E.g.
> for  Windows NT 4 you have 100% probability after 5000 guesses. There is
> no  OS  with  100% or even 50% probablity after 1 guess. And you have to
> remember,  that  result  of  the  guess is not known to you immediately,
> because you are spoofing blindly.

I'm fully aware of that.  How is that any different than the *many* exploits
we've seen that have to launch the attack a number of times with different
offsets because the "right" one can't be predicted?

Not every exploit triggers 100% the first time.  Deal with it.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

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