Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits
From: "w1re p4ir" <w1rep4ir () disinfo net>
Date: 23 Sep 2001 00:20:29 -0000
Any reason they chose our names? They must have sounded leet to them. ;p I hope people don't get the impression we ran those faulty exploits, I certianly didn't... And yes we do always need to be careful when running script kiddie tools thats what gdb is for, no? Also if you ever see shellcode for a *nix based machine thats over 7-8 lines be very suspicious. w1re
As always, never trust stuff you get here without checking, and run at your own risk. See here for why: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170392.html :)
________________________________________________________ The Best News Source On The Web - http://www.disinfo.com
Current thread:
- wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits josmon m. (Sep 22)
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits Blue Boar (Sep 22)
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits josmon m. (Sep 22)
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits Jason Parker (Sep 22)
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits josmon m. (Sep 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits w1re p4ir (Sep 22)
- Re: wuftpd 2.6.1 (fake?) exploits Blue Boar (Sep 22)