Re: ping -i (TTL) Vulnerability

[-No Strezzz Cazzz <Butterphly6 () cazzz demon nl>]

-----Original Message-----
From: rpc <h () CKZ ORG>
To: VULN-DEV () SECURITYFOCUS COM <VULN-DEV () SECURITYFOCUS COM>
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: ping -i (TTL) Vulnerability


> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:34:49 -0800, Reverend Lola said:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >  >From: Damian Menscher [mailto:menscher () UIUC EDU]
> >  >Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:20 PM
> >  >To: VULN-DEV () SECURITYFOCUS COM
> >  >Subject: Re: ping -i (TTL) Vulnerability
> >
> >  %<-----SNIP----->%
> >
> >  >No doubt that this would do absolutely nothing from a
> >  remote location.
> >
> >  %<-----SNIP----->%
> >
> >  Actually, it does.
>
>
> What you define below does not constitute a 'remote attack'. ping is still
> executing locally. This is completely unrelated. I could just as easily DoS
the
> machine by creating 1e16 instances of minesweeper with remote command
> execution.

I thought that when a bug could get triggered from a remote location the bug
itself is considered a remote-bug. In this case its a remote aswell as a
local bug. I want a p0ny...


-No Strezzz Cazzz, Powered By UN0X