nanog mailing list archives
Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:47:31 -0500 (EST)
land.c is this programI tried it against a 7505 running 11.2(9)P and a 2511 running 11.2(7a), with no obvious bad effects. The announcement does not indicate which IOS versions are vulnerable; I'd love to know.
11.1(1) is certainly vulnerable, though in a far more restricted fashion than most affected TCP/IP stacks are. I suspect that you may have ben careless in your porting of the exploit... To answer Mr. Denninger's query, I don't really feel that releasing the portable version of the exploit on a list with as many unsavory characters as NANOG is really a great plan. In the grand scheme of things it almost certainly doesn't matter, but I'll nevertheless avoid it. --jhawk
Current thread:
- OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Sean Donelan (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Henry Linneweh (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Charley Kline (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death James D. Butt (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Leigh Porter (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Nathan Bates (Nov 25)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Karl Denninger (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death blast (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Charley Kline (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death John Hawkinson (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Alex Rubenstein (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Avi Freedman (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Henry Linneweh (Nov 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Daniel MacKay (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Stan Barber (Nov 21)
- Re: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Michael Behrens (Nov 21)
- RE: OPS: SECURITY new packet of death Darin Fisher (Nov 21)