Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
RE: More on Shatter
From: "Kris Kistler" <krisk () kbeta com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:26:29 -0500
While I haven't tested this particular piece of code remotely, it should be noted that when access is provided via Terminal Services, Citrix MF, PcAny, or with any countless number of other "remote access" type services, any code run is running in the "local machine" context, which makes this and many other "local" exploits actually quite dangerous. K
-----Original Message----- From: HalbaSus [mailto:halbasus () go ro]
3. As long as someone needs phisical access for this it's not really such a serious problem.. usually when someone has phisical access to a computer he can do mostly whatever he/she wants. Without using exploits... 4. And probably the most important reason: Shatter is one of those mostly harmless yet very neet exploits that you can impress your friends with... or
Current thread:
- More on Shatter Chris Paget (Aug 23)
- Re: More on Shatter Daniel Newby (Aug 23)
- Re: More on Shatter Dragos Ruiu (Aug 24)
- Re: More on Shatter Daniel Newby (Aug 24)
- Re: More on Shatter Dragos Ruiu (Aug 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- re: More on Shatter HalbaSus (Aug 25)
- Re: More on Shatter Darryl Luff (Aug 25)
- Re: More on Shatter Syzop (Aug 26)
- Re: More on Shatter H C (Aug 26)
- RE: More on Shatter Kris Kistler (Aug 26)
- RE: More on Shatter Richard Masoner (Aug 26)
- RE: More on Shatter Mark Ribbans (Aug 26)
- RE: More on Shatter Kayne Ian (Softlab) (Aug 27)
- Re: More on Shatter Daniel Newby (Aug 23)