Re: Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network?

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Michal Zalewski wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> > I have to agree with a previous poster and suspect (only suspect) it
> > could somehow be a backdoor rather than a bug.
>
> You're attributing malice to what could be equally well (or better!)
> explained by incompetence or gross negligence. The latter two haunt large
> companies far more often, compared to sinister conspiracies.
>
> Yeah, a backdoor is a remote possibility. But it's also an arbitrary and
> needlessly complex one. Maybe it's a nefarious plot by our UFO-appointed
> shadow government, but chances are, it's not (they have better things to
> do today).
>
> Keep that in mind: when risking so much, of all the places to put a covert
> backdoor to use for years to come, pulling out a known flaw that will be
> spotted by many existing vulnerability scanners, and putting it in a
> service that is often disabled as obsolete and generally unreachable from
> the outside world, doesn't really make that much sense.

Well, I just can't rule it out. It speaks for itself. Your voice of reason
is naturally appreciated.

I still believe it is a possibility, as what could be better?

In 1994, this wasn't very far-off, nor was this noticable. Probable other
explanations are abound, we will see if Sun sets us straight.

> Unless, of course, it's a sabotage attempt orchestrated by a joint team of
> IBM and SCO developers... now, that begins to make sense..

Trucks and tubes I tell ya!

> /mz

        Gadi.

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