 | ||||
| << Previous | INDEX | Search | src / Print | Next >> |
| ||||
| |||||||||||||||
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:32:04 +0100 From: Thierry Zoller <Thierry@Zoller.lu.> To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com Subject: Re[2]: Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network? In-Reply-To: <200702132101.l1DL1rrK002584@vaticaan.holland.sun.com.> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0702130340320.11234-100000@linuxbox.org.> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0702132025130.5750@dione.> <200702132101.l1DL1rrK002584@vaticaan.holland.sun.com.> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: antivirus-gw at tyumen.ru Dear Casper Dik, I wasn't crying wolf about a Backdoor, heck I am not Steve Gibson. I was asking whether somebody will investigate why this hasn't been caught by audits or simply Q&A ? CDSC> And one which was too easy to discover; You said it, it's "easy to discover", so who has discovered it? Sun ? Considering it's that easy to catch, why hasn't SUN ? Maybe you can give us a heads up on that ? 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 ? CDSC> masquared as buffer overflows you might not chance upon. Nobody doesn't that anymore, everybody does code audits now and catches bufferoverflows, right? I think other overflows are more interesting to hide access. -- http://secdev.zoller.lu Thierry Zoller Fingerprint : 5D84 BFDC CD36 A951 2C45 2E57 28B3 75DD 0AC6 F1C7
| |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
