On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:35:12AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote:
> On Monday 08 December 2003 18:20, Colin Watson wrote:
> > You can go further by requiring physical presentation
> > of smartcards or similar in order to use the key, which is less
> > convenient but makes a passphrase more or less usel
On Monday 08 December 2003 18:20, Colin Watson wrote:
> You can go further by requiring physical presentation
> of smartcards or similar in order to use the key, which is less
> convenient but makes a passphrase more or less useless on its own.
Aren't smartcards similar to dongles in some respects
on Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:03:43PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:25:38PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:13:07PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > My understanding is that the developer's account on the ma
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:25:38PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:13:07PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > My understanding is that the developer's account on the machine in
> > question had been disused for some time, and that the machine wasn't
> > ve
Alvin Oga wrote:
[SNIP]
you can also use a [warm blooded] fingerprint scanner ...
since "smartcards can be lost" ..
- but if you lose your finger or you lose your fingerprint
on a glass with fingerprint stealing glue, you're in deep kaka
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> What you'd actually want is hardware that stores the keys and does the
> signing and decryption for you, but refuses to expose the private key
> material itself to the host. Then, while a cracker could sniff your
> passphrase, the key itself would still
on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:13:07PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:08:54PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > After reading a few more responses, I realize that of course a debian
> > developer's machine could get compromised. I guess I just thought the
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:46:21PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:52:30PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > I'm considering keeping my private keys (ssh, gpg, etc) on removable
> > storage, maybe one of those USB keys (then my keys could actually go on
> > my keyring...). It's c
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:08:54PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> After reading a few more responses, I realize that of course a debian
> developer's machine could get compromised. I guess I just thought they
> were infallible *grin*
>
> Now, the real question is, what exploit was used to get
- Original Message -
From: "Hugo Vanwoerkom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:47
Subject: Re: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
> Hoyt Bailey wrote:
> > - Original Message -
&g
- Original Message -
From: "csj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 07:56
Subject: Re: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
> On 4. December 2003 at 3:22PM -0600,
> "Hoyt Bailey" <[
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:28:06 -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 14:24]:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:05:15 -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
>>
>> > * Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031204 12:32]:
>> >> I have all services locked down to localhost; my only connections
* Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 14:24]:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:05:15 -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > * Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031204 12:32]:
> >> I have all services locked down to localhost; my only connections to
> >> the outside world are mail, news via nntpcached, web vi
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:05:15 -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031204 12:32]:
>> I have all services locked down to localhost; my only connections to
>> the outside world are mail, news via nntpcached, web via squid... I run
>> Apache but it too is locked down to loca
Hoyt Bailey wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "csj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 22:40
Subject: Re: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
On 3. December 2003 at 5:52PM -0800,
Vineet Kumar <
On 4. December 2003 at 3:22PM -0600,
"Hoyt Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "csj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > Now I'm curious: is it possible to get rooted while on
> > dialup? I'm thinking of a user with access to a slow but
> > dirt cheap dialup connection and so is online for sig
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, csj wrote:
> Now I'm curious: is it possible to get rooted while on dialup?
fastest breakin i know about took about 15 seconds for them
(the crackers) to get in and play with that new box ...
once that machine went online ... they were already cracked
and had to reinstalll
* Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031204 12:32]:
> I have all services locked down to localhost; my only connections to
> the outside world are mail, news via nntpcached, web via squid... I run
> Apache but it too is locked down to localhost. My mail is run through my
this ...
> ISP's (earthli
- Original Message -
From: "csj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 22:40
Subject: Re: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
> On 3. December 2003 at 5:52PM -0800,
> Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:46:21 -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> If the system is rooted, it would be trivial to write a replacement
> for ssh (GPG, etc.) that copies your private keys onto the hard drive
> for later retrieval. Definition of "trivial" is: I, a bad
> programmer, could do it.
Well bad in th
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:40:42 +0800, csj wrote:
> On 3. December 2003 at 5:52PM -0800,
> Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 16:59]:
>> > I have been wondering about the password-sniffing thing, too.
>> > If you send a password using ssh, is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:40:42PM +0800, csj wrote:
> Now I'm curious: is it possible to get rooted while on dialup?
Yes. However, being on dialup adds some additional difficulties for
an attacker:
1) Most dialup systems have big, dynamic pools wit
* csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031204 08:37]:
> On 3. December 2003 at 5:52PM -0800,
> Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 16:59]:
> > > I have been wondering about the password-sniffing thing, too.
> > > If you send a password using ssh, isn't
csj writes:
> Now I'm curious: is it possible to get rooted while on dialup?
Of course. It's a little harder because the dialup gets a different IP
number on each connection, but not impossible. Dialups are rarely attacked
because they are uninteresting to most crackers due to their slow speed a
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:40:42PM +0800, csj wrote:
> Now I'm curious: is it possible to get rooted while on dialup?
Sure. An ip address is an ip address. It's just slower.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3. December 2003 at 5:52PM -0800,
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 16:59]:
> > I have been wondering about the password-sniffing thing, too.
> > If you send a password using ssh, isn't it encrypted?
> >
> > I suppose some debian develope
> i never did undestand why, people wanna run rootkits once they
> got in
Usually they want to use the rooted machine to send spam, run DoS bots, or
to cover their trail while cracking other, more interesting machines. I
agree that when cracking a DD's machine in order to get his Debian password
> "Isaac" == Isaac To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Paul" == Paul Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> With regard to your question 3, a buffer overflow exploit is
Paul> always a stack exploit and is designed to execute arbitrary code
Paul> with the called program's privil
> "Paul" == Paul Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> With regard to your question 3, a buffer overflow exploit is
Paul> always a stack exploit and is designed to execute arbitrary code
Paul> with the called program's privilege.
But this time it is an "integer overflow", not a
Sorry for the duplicate post. The first one did not appear for a long
time, and I assumed it was because I used the wrong email address.
-- Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:33:34AM -0700, Dr. MacQuigg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> After reading the report at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
> and following this newsgroup discussion, I have some very basic questions:
>
> 1) What is a "sniffed pas
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 at 01:52 GMT, Vineet Kumar penned:
>
> BTW, Monique, your UA seems to have really screwed up on the message
> you replied to. Is it not MIME-aware? The reply had a quoted MIME
> header in it, along with a lot of non-decoded QP equals signs littered
> about it.
>
http://sour
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carl Fink wrote:
>
> If the system is rooted, it would be trivial to write a replacement
> for ssh (GPG, etc.) that copies your private keys onto the hard drive
> for later retrieval. Definition of "trivial" is: I, a bad
> programmer, could do it.
why copy and get it later
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:52:30PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> I'm considering keeping my private keys (ssh, gpg, etc) on removable
> storage, maybe one of those USB keys (then my keys could actually go on
> my keyring...). It's certainly not foolproof, but at least a sniffed
> passphrase could
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, Monique, your UA seems to have really screwed up on the message you
> replied to. Is it not MIME-aware? The reply had a quoted MIME header
> in it, along with a lot of non-decoded QP equals signs littered about it.
I think she posts through the gm
hi ya benedict
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> > I'm one of those who's got all his systems on safe kernels, even if this
> > means I don't have full use. NICs on one box aren't supported by
> > 2.4.18, and building 2.4.23 is turning into a bitch.
>
> Is there a page anywhere (i
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 at 23:05 GMT, Monique Y. Herman penned:
>
> I have been wondering about the password-sniffing thing, too. If you
> send a password using ssh, isn't it encrypted?
>
> I suppose some debian developer's kid sister could have installed a
> keystroke logger on the dev machine ...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, John Hasler wrote:
good thread john :-)
> > How does an attacker with a user-level password gain root access?
>
> In this case by exploiting a bug in sbrk(). The kernel developers knew
> about the bug but did not believe it to be exploitable. They were wrong.
>
> > ...ho
* Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 16:59]:
> I have been wondering about the password-sniffing thing, too. If you
> send a password using ssh, isn't it encrypted?
>
> I suppose some debian developer's kid sister could have installed a
> keystroke logger on the dev machine ... um ...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> Your argument sounds like my 6yr old doing a "I want it now, I don't
> care what your reasons are" soon followed by a temper tantrum.
thats normal for the grown-ups too .. just a different form of "temper
tantrum" and usually a shorter fuse tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> Sidestepping lawsuits from a million angry customers isn't really a
> "win".
You're right. Which is why I really wish Bugtraq didn't wait around
before publishing their findings. Custom
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 at 22:36 GMT, Alex Malinovich penned:
>
> --=-0wVW9GplMT9KFGFuBZNx Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 11:33, Dr. MacQuigg wrote:
>> After reading the report at=20
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-an
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:33:34 -0700, Dr. MacQuigg wrote:
> After reading the report at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
> and following this newsgroup discussion, I have some very basic questions:
>
> 1) What is a "sniffed password", and how do they k
After reading the report at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
and following this newsgroup discussion, I have some very basic questions:
1) What is a "sniffed password", and how do they know the attacker used a
password that was "sniffed", rather than j
Dr. MacQuigg writes:
> What is a "sniffed password"
A password gotten by reading each character as it is typed on the keyboard
or by intercepting an unencrypted transmission. In this case it was the
former.
> ...and how do they know the attacker used a password that was "sniffed",
> rather than
(Not speaking for Debian at all.)
"Dr. MacQuigg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) What is a "sniffed password", and how do they know the attacker
> used a password that was "sniffed", rather than just stolen out of
> someone's notebook?
It sounds like someone's personal machine got broken into,
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 11:33, Dr. MacQuigg wrote:
> After reading the report at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
> and following this newsgroup discussion, I have some very basic questions:
>
> 1) What is a "sniffed password", and how do they know the a
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:21 +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>>
After reading the report at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
and following this newsgroup discussion, I have some very basic questions:
1) What is a "sniffed password", and how do they know the attacker used a
password that was "sniffed", rather than j
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:21 +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>> I'm one of those who's got all his systems on safe kernels, even if this
>> means I don't have full use. NICs on one box aren't supported by
>> 2.4.18, and building 2.4.23 is turning into a bitch.
>
> Is there a page anywhere (if no
* Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031202 23:01]:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:11:33PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> > Ther is always a conflict between security and openness. MS's approach
> > has always been not to say anything until a fix has been propagated; they
> > are often criticized for t
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:01:43 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:11:33PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>> Ther is always a conflict between security and openness. MS's approach
>> has always been not to say anything until a fix
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:57:55 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> Suppose I go off for two weeks holiday? I'm the only one who can change
> my system's kernel, but I leave it on because it is the gateway for
> everyone else. The day after I leave, some idiot publishes details of
> this exploit and
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:08:07 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>> It would be a lot less stable and secure if debian started
>> publishing exploits. The announcement explains quite clearly
Hello Benedict!
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:25:21PM +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
Is there a page anywhere (if not, there should be one) or info on what
type of patches are added to a debianized kernel and where to find them.
I don't know about a page, but I find a long list in
/usr/share/doc/ker
> I'm one of those who's got all his systems on safe kernels, even if this
> means I don't have full use. NICs on one box aren't supported by
> 2.4.18, and building 2.4.23 is turning into a bitch.
Is there a page anywhere (if not, there should be one) or info on what
type of patches are added to
on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:08:07PM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> > It would be a lot less stable and secure if debian started
> > publishing exploits. The announcement explains quite clearly what
> > happened and how
on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:12:40PM -0600, Alex Malinovich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:31, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > Shoulda Been:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
> >
> > What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
> Thank
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:16:15AM -0500, Greg Folkert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 02:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:44PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 14:12, Alex M
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 02:08, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> > It would be a lot less stable and secure if debian started
> > publishing exploits. The announcement explains quite clearly what
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 02:04, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:15PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Because there will be lots of people who haven't yet had the chance to
> > upgrade. They won't thank us for making an exploit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:16:15AM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 02:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:44PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 14:12, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > > I'm afr
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 02:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:44PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 14:12, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > I'm afraid I'm part of the group that just doesn't understand. This
> >
Hmmm. A friend of mine works at a company with over 500 machines in the
field. Many of them are customer facing. There are more than 1
configuration on the servers. He has to compile each config and run it
through a dev/test and a full regression before he can update any
production machine
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:04, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:15PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Because there will be lots of people who haven't yet had the chance to
> > upgrade. They won't thank us for making an exploit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> It would be a lot less stable and secure if debian started
> publishing exploits. The announcement explains quite clearly what
> happened and how to protect your system.
Why does BugTraq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:15PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Because there will be lots of people who haven't yet had the chance to
> upgrade. They won't thank us for making an exploit available to every
> would-be cracker.
Why should we cater
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:44PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 14:12, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > I'm afraid I'm part of the group that just doesn't understand. This
> > snippet reeks of security through obscurity for me. If the h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:11:33PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> Ther is always a conflict between security and openness. MS's approach
> has always been not to say anything until a fix has been propagated; they
> are often criticized for that, but I'm
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003, at 15:01 -0600, Preston Boyington wrote:
> >Though I am somewhat concerned about the following bit from the
> >message:
> >
> > "Please understand that we cannot give away the used exploit to
> > random people who we don't know. So please don't ask us about it."
> >
> > I
Hugo writes:
> There would seem to be a misnomer, "script-kiddies" can come up with an
> exploit like this and still be "kiddies"?
Script-kiddies don't come up with anything. Crackers come up with exploits
and give to the kiddies to play with.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Danci
John Hasler wrote:
dman writes:
The only thing I have to add, apart from noting above that the exploit
was divulged...
The _bug_ was divulged. The exploit is so difficult that the kernel
hackers didn't think the bug was exploitable.
There would seem to be a misnomer, "script-kiddies" can come u
dman writes:
> The only thing I have to add, apart from noting above that the exploit
> was divulged...
The _bug_ was divulged. The exploit is so difficult that the kernel
hackers didn't think the bug was exploitable.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:01:48 -0600, Preston Boyington wrote:
>
> I agree. I support and recommend Debian to my peers and clients on the
> basis that Debian is a stable and secure distribution. Therefore when
> something (such as this) happens I want to have full disclosure so I can
> confidentl
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:12:40PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
| Thanks for the link. It certainly makes for interesting reading. Though
| I am somewhat concerned about the following bit from the message:
|
| "Please understand that we cannot give away the used exploit to random
| people who we
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:12:40 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:31, Greg Folkert wrote:
>> Shoulda Been:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
>>
>> What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
>>
>> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:08, G
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:12, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm part of the group that just doesn't understand. This
> snippet reeks of security through obscurity for me. If the hole has been
> identified and, presumably, fixed, why not tell people about it?
Because there will be lots of peop
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 14:12, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:31, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > Shoulda Been:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
> >
> > What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:08, Gre
Title: RE: Debian Investigation Report after Server Compromises
>Though I am somewhat concerned about the following bit from the message:
>
> "Please understand that we cannot give away the used exploit to random
> people who we don't know. So please don't ask us
Greg Folkert wrote:
Shoulda Been:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.htmlDebian
:-D
Wh
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:31, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Shoulda Been:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
>
> What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
>
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
> >
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/deb
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:08:57 -0500,
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.htmlDebian
>
..he meant:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
--
..med ven
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:08:57AM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.htmlDebian
That's a killer incident report. I'm satisfied.
Couldn't help thinking about horses and barn doors though. I expect
we'll see the "what next" next :
Shoulda Been:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
What a wanker I am. No, Peter no comment needed.
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 11:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.htmlDebian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REMEM
84 matches
Mail list logo
