Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:32:04 +0100
From: Thierry Zoller <Thierry@Zoller.lu.>
To: [email protected]Subject: Re[2]: Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network?
In-Reply-To: <200702132101.l1DL1rrK002584@vaticaan.holland.sun.com.>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0702130340320.11234-100000@linuxbox.org.> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0702132025130.5750@dione.> <200702132101.l1DL1rrK002584@vaticaan.holland.sun.com.>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: antivirus-gw at tyumen.ru
Dear Casper Dik,
I wasn't crying wolf about a Backdoor, heck I am not Steve Gibson. I
was asking whether somebody will investigate why this hasn't been
caught by audits or simply Q&A ?
CDSC> And one which was too easy to discover;
You said it, it's "easy to discover", so who has discovered it? Sun ? Considering
it's that easy to catch, why hasn't SUN ? Maybe you can give us a
heads up on that ?
CDSC> real back doors are better
I like that tautologie, "real backdoors", what makes a backdoor more
real than another one ? Is it the coolness, the stealth ? Or is it
simply the fact that it gives back door access ?
CDSC> masquared as buffer overflows you might not chance upon.
Nobody doesn't that anymore, everybody does code audits now and catches
bufferoverflows, right? I think other overflows are more interesting
to hide access.
--
http://secdev.zoller.lu
Thierry Zoller
Fingerprint : 5D84 BFDC CD36 A951 2C45 2E57 28B3 75DD 0AC6 F1C7
