Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too)
From: Day Jay <d4yj4y () yahoo com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Is it the fact that you aren't American or don't know English an issue for you? You sure are coming up with many things that I never stated or said. It's apparent that you need to get a life and find better things to do than to try to make up stories and come up with false details of what you think is going on. Get a life. Since when did you even think that was an exploit? Hahah! Yeah, like I really need to make the 1700 value dynamic for you, my teacher, hahahaha! Again, get a life. That's an exploit? Not really, not unless you make it setuid, which with your depth of knowledge seems like something, you might even accidentally do! Oooh, and taking a stance?? On what? You read what I wrote, now stop trying to put words into my mouth or spread your false ideas. Obviously, you need more English lessons. Perhaps Steve was teaching you English since that's something he does (per his website) and he probably didn't even do a good job at that since you don't comprehend anything. Like I said, enough talk. Why don't you try to give something to the list aside from your incessant praise to a mediocre Unix traitor? If he's such a Unix guy, then why is he wiping his arse with Microsoft toilet paper? Where are your exploits? And gay jokes, yes, since it is obvious that you being gay is an issue, I thought I would bring it up. (Don't make me bring up the logs) It's also not my fault you don't have access to any real 0day so you can only try to heckle some out of me but it's not going to work. Begging for 0day is the only thing you will be doing the rest of your life. I wouldn't give you any major 0day code. (believe you me, I have plenty) And people like you are the reason why I would never give up such. Remember, I said MAJOR 0day...don't get it twisted. It's not my fault you're all butt hurt from running the IIS 6 exploit and mailing the list your shadow password file, lol or rming your home dirs. And any educated person would be able to see that the code was an attempt to educate...and I guess you weren't even smart enough to be educated by it! I never admitted anything, I told you to let it go. All exploits now a days dynamically get the stack pointer dumbass. The pwck buffer overflow example had a hard coded "offset" - keyword, "offset" not stack pointer you moron. All you want to do is praise this guy, go ahead. There's nothing valuable either of you two have done with yourselves other than trying to save face and justify a pretty mediocre existence. I'm sorry you never made it in life don't take your frustrations out on me. And yes, your kiddie porn and "barely legal" porn awaits back at your computer. That seems to be the only thing you know how to work with since nothing else has come from your "R&D". Show me a real exploit, and then we'll talk. Until then, sit down. Please moderator, close this topic since all responses to it have been off topic and displaying pure wannabes angry at their own ability to find bugs or produce something useful to the security community. --- Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2005 11:59:16 PDT, Day Jay said:It was figured out long ago pal, the fact of the matter is and that I pointed out numbskull is thatheshould automate getting of the stack pointer likeallof the other one's do.Except the code you were penis-extender-waving around as an example of how you have to steal lame exploits you can't even fix. Figure out how to get that 1700 automated in *your* code, and then we'll talk. (I'd not get on your case about it, except that the code you posted has *more* hardcoding in it than the code you're complaining about).It's a default valuehardcodedin..let it go.So now you're admitting it's a default value, not a hardcoded one? Whatever happened to standing up for your position? (And you're still missing the point - if it's a changeable value with a default, it's not hardcoded).You and your gay lover can continue looking atkiddieporn now.When all else fails, resort to ad hominem attacks. You know, with a bad attitude like that, it's not surprising that you can't get access to any better exploits to steal.
Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html _______________________________________________ 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: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too), (continued)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Brian Debottari (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) imipak (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Day Jay (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Valdis . Kletnieks (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) J u a n (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) Micheal Espinola Jr (May 09)
- Re: PWCK Overflow POC Code Redhat/Suse older versions or something (maybe later too) James Tucker (May 09)