Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Must coredump? No. (Was: Local root through vuln...)
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow () FALSE ORG>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:57:26 -0700
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:11:12AM +0200, Bluefish (P.Magnusson) wrote:
My qoute:Doesn't seem exploitable, but a bit funny :)is very relaxed and unspecific. Anyone saying "Doesn't seem exploitable" should certainly not be considered to have real research behind his words. "Seem" is a very weak word. What I ment was that all testings I've done so far with traceroute has never once resulted in a coredump. Therefor I think, without strong research behind my words, that this specific bug does never cause a buffert overflow. I also assumed traceroute to be written of such simplicity and logical behaivor that there exists no condition where overwritten data can cause a problem.
In this case, I have a hunch that it -is- exploitable, actually. With a little assistance from Nergal yesterday, I am very close to having it written; I'll pound on it in my next free time. It's a very silly bug. Dan /--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University | | dan () debian org | | dmj+ () andrew cmu edu | \--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Current thread:
- Must coredump? No. (Was: Local root through vuln...) Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Aug 23)
- Re: Must coredump? No. (Was: Local root through vuln...) Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Aug 23)
- Re: Must coredump? No. (Was: Local root through vuln...) Daniel Jacobowitz (Aug 24)
- Re: Must coredump? No. (Was: Local root through vuln...) Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Aug 25)