Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: new ssh exploit?
From: Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:01:46 -0400
2003-09-17T08:17:43 Bennett Todd:
2003-09-16T21:16:34 Blue Boar:Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that lshd will be better in terms of future bugs vs. OpenSSH?Good question.
Better question; thanks to a tip from a friend, I can provide concrete evidence to the contrary. This command: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=1|nc <hostname> 22 >/dev/null takes down an lsh-1.5.2 reliably taking no more than 2-3 tries on average. The same, both in the above form and with 10kb of urandom per blat, doesn't bother openssh-3.7.1 for hundreds of tries. I tried emailing this to lsh-bugs, got some moronic thing from some idiot third-party anti-spam service "please send this special email to this special place and we might think about letting your message through". Right. So much for lshd, at least for now. Back to the patch-n-grind of openssh. Anybody know of an ssh implementation --- even just the server side --- that's actually tight clean secure code? -Bennett
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: new ssh exploit?, (continued)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Ron DuFresne (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 17)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 17)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Bennett Todd (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Ron DuFresne (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Bennett Todd (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Blue Boar (Sep 16)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Bennett Todd (Sep 17)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Bennett Todd (Sep 18)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Damian Gerow (Sep 18)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Bennett Todd (Sep 18)
- Re: new ssh exploit? Damian Gerow (Sep 18)