RE: 9660 : Microsoft IIS Unspecified Remote Denial Of Service Vu lnerability

[kquest () toplayer com]

I want to mention that the claim about EEYE
is my own logical conclusion. I don't know if
it's true or not. I based my opinion on my own
experience dealing with the OpenSSL and MS ASN.1
vulnerabilities. I ended up writing my own
X509 editor/decoder and SSL client when I was
researching the OpenSSL vulnerabilities. When
EEYE announced their MS ASN.1 discoveries 
I simply used what I already had... only on IIS
(with some minor configuration changes). 
It seems logical to assume that they came
across those MS vulnerabilities because of OpenSSL.
For example, if you compare the first OpenSSL 
vulnerability to the MS ASN.1 Library Length 
Overflow Heap Corruption you'll see that 
they are too similar to be a simple coincidence...


-----Original Message-----
From: kquest () toplayer com [mailto:kquest () toplayer com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:03 AM
To: bugtraq () securityfocus com
Subject: bid: 9660 : Microsoft IIS Unspecified Remote Denial Of Service
Vu lnerability



This is not an unspecified remote DoS.
This is related to the vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE.
The reason the exploit caused a DoS is because the OpenSSL
vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE overlap.
They both have a length integer overflow. I actually believe that
EEYE discovered their vulnerabilities right after the OpenSSL
vulnerabilities came out. They ran their PoC code against
IIS and discovered a DoS (just like this bid reports). Then they
dug a bit deeper and now we have those multiple MS ASN.1 vulnerabilities
that everybody is talking about. It was pretty much a no brainer for them.

Kyle