Re: Microsoft Windows vulnerability in TCP/IP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2588516)

["Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>]

Yeah, I gotta say, I'm going to use it at some point ;)

From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of 
Mario Vilas
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Ryan Dewhurst
Cc: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows vulnerability in TCP/IP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2588516)

I liked the "heavy breather in the perv closet" bit.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Ryan Dewhurst <ryandewhurst () gmail com<mailto:ryandewhurst () gmail com>> wrote:
I think Jon just said what everyone else was thinking, he said what I
was thinking at least.

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jon Kertz <jon.kertz () gmail com<mailto:jon.kertz () gmail com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, xD 0x41 <secn3t () gmail com<mailto:secn3t () gmail com>> wrote:
> > About the PPS, i think thats a very bad summary of the exploit, 49days
> > to send a packet, my butt.
> > There is many people assuming wrong things, when it can be done with
> > seconds, syscanner would scan a -b class in minutes, remember it only
> > has to find the vulns, gather, then it would break scan, and trigger
> > vuln... so in real world botnet, yes then, with tcpip patchers, like
> > somany ppl i know myself, even use (tcpipz)patcher ) , wich rocks...
> > and it is ONLY one wich actually works, when you maybe modify the src
> > so the sys file, is dropped from within a .cpp file, well thats up to
> > you but thats better way to make it work, this will open
> > sockets/threads, as i could, easily proove with one exe, but, the goal
> > is, to trigger the vuln then exploit it, less than 49days :P , so ,
> > iguess if this exploit, in real form, gathered 2 million hosts over 3
> > nights.. i guessing that the exploit, could possibly be triggered with
> > ONE properly setup packet.. people forget that, a packet is one thing,
> > and a crafted UDP packet, is quite another..
>
> I'd really like to see you actually explain this bug with code. Either
> with a poc or with the disassembly. You seem to act like you know
> what's going on, but so far your description has been off base (from
> what I can make of your writing).
>
> No one cares about paragraphs of speculation and bragging, code or you
> are just another heavy breather in the perv closet of FD.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

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



--
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects 
the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

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