RE: RE: Re: Bad news on RPC DCOM vulnerability

["Mike Gordon" <sigpizbguy () hotpop com>]

Answered one of my own questions: (Thanks to
http://www.ultrabac.com/kb/UltraBac_Help/UBQ_Articles_(FAQ_s)/UBQ000192.htm)

WSAECONNRESET

Error Number: 10054

Connection reset by peer. 

A existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. 
This normally results if the peer application on the remote 
host is suddenly stopped, the host is rebooted, or the remote 
host used a "hard close" .


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Gordon [mailto:sigpizbguy () hotpop com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:44 PM
To: 'Paul Tinsley'
Cc: 'full-disclosure () lists netsys com'
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] RE: Re: Bad news on RPC DCOM vulnerability


I had better luck compiling the cyberphreak version (have since managed to
compile several flavors), but it still only seems to DoS patched and
unpatched systems.  
The code gets stuck in a loop and always produces error 10054.  Any idea
what that means?

 if(ft) 
         { 
              int i=0; 
              while(1) //this seems to be an endless loop, till a error
apears!! 
              { 
                   if (send(sock,(const char *)buf2,len1,0)==SOCKET_ERROR) 
                   { 
                        printf("\nSend
failed.Error:%d\n",WSAGetLastError()); 
                        return 0; 
                   } 
                   else 
                   { 
                  printf("\rStatus: %d",++i); 
                   } 
                   //Sleep(1000); 
              } 
           
         } 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Tinsley [mailto:pdt () jackhammer org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:38 PM
To: mike () michaelgordon com
Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 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_



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html