Re: CERT Advisory CA-2002-19 Buffer Overflow in Multiple DNS Resolver Libraries

[Trying again w/ an attempt to graft on to an existing thread.] Hi, I see a claim that glibc isn't vulnerable at: http://www.kb.cert.org/CERT_WEB/vul-notes.nsf/id/AAMN-5BMSW2 Any comments? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI

Re: ***DEB*: Set the way-back machine to OpenSSH 1.2.1

> -- > > Let's say, hypothetically, that I happen to be responsible for a machine > running OpenSSH 1.2.1. I checked, and it's not vulnerable to the recent > xmalloc() overflow seen on versions 3.x. > > Are there any known *remote* root exploit

Re: Set the way-back machine to OpenSSH 1.2.1

Brian Boonstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let's say, hypothetically, that I happen to be responsible for a machine > running OpenSSH 1.2.1. I checked, and it's not vulnerable to the recent > xmalloc() overflow seen on versions 3.x. > > Are there any known *remote* root exploits on this ver

Set the way-back machine to OpenSSH 1.2.1

Let's say, hypothetically, that I happen to be responsible for a machine running OpenSSH 1.2.1. I checked, and it's not vulnerable to the recent xmalloc() overflow seen on versions 3.x. Are there any known *remote* root exploits on this version? I realize lack of maintenance is a problem,

Re: Good Day - spamassin

Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam, > i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam" > folder ??? > > i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that > fills up their boxes with returned undeliverab

Re: NEWS RELEASE

## Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: > > See? I don't know who configured 4.7 as threshold (should be 4.2, anyhow), > > but for my private purposes I consider 2.0 as the upper limit. > Here's a novel idea... > If hitt