Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: bash vulnerability?
From: "Graham Reed" <greed () pobox com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:23:18 -0400
Rik Bobbaers writes:
so ctrl-c is just a SIGINT... you can make the program ignore that signal, i don't want to start doing that in asm (because its just a poc) but just change the pointer to the signal handler to rewrite the pointer to a return statement or something...
Set SIGINT's sa_handler to SIG_IGN. No need to make an actual handler. But, Linux seems to be particularly susceptible to fork-bombs. Other systems (AIX, Solaris, BSD) I have accidentally (and later deliberately) fork-bombed have been easier to recover from console ^C. Linux tends to lose keyboard processing completely, so you can't get a ^C in edgewise. (At least, based on various Red Hats.)
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: bash vulnerability?, (continued)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Andre' Breiler (Aug 13)
- Re: bash vulnerability? fd (Aug 14)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Milan 't4c' Berger (Aug 13)
- Re: bash vulnerability? starwars (Aug 14)
- RE: bash vulnerability? Jay (Aug 15)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Rik Bobbaers (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Jay (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Boris Jordanov / Борис Йорданов (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? luke (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Rik Bobbaers (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Graham Reed (Aug 16)
- Re: bash vulnerability? nocfed (Aug 18)
- Re: bash vulnerability? nocfed (Aug 18)
- Re: bash vulnerability? Rik Bobbaers (Aug 16)
- Re: Re: Bash vulnerability? Gilles DEMARTY (Aug 26)
- Re: Re: Bash vulnerability? Octal (Aug 26)
- Re: Re: Bash vulnerability? Aaron J. Bedra (Aug 26)
- Re: Re: Bash vulnerability? Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 26)