On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:41:20PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you investigate other
> weaknesses than the SSH1 implementation. It's my gut feeling based on
> the facts you have mentioned that another explanation is far more
> likely.
Certainly, we ha
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:41:20PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you investigate other
> weaknesses than the SSH1 implementation. It's my gut feeling based on
> the facts you have mentioned that another explanation is far more
> likely.
Certainly, we ha
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've done some research and have seen reports on several "kits"
> > available to exploit the SSH1 protocol.
>
> Can you send me a
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've done some research and have seen reports on several "kits"
> > available to exploit the SSH1 protocol.
>
> Can you send me a
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:01:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've come to the conclusion that the SSH1 protocol is the most
> > likely cause of this problem.
>
> Attacks on the SSH v1 protocol are relatively
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:01:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've come to the conclusion that the SSH1 protocol is the most
> > likely cause of this problem.
>
> Attacks on the SSH v1 protocol are relatively
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 03:28:49AM +0100, Nick Boyce wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:21 -0400, Tim Peeler wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:15:28PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0400
> >> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 03:28:49AM +0100, Nick Boyce wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:21 -0400, Tim Peeler wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:15:28PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0400
> >> Tim Peeler <[EMAIL
Followup:
This has caused problems on some of our old potato systems as well.
It appears to be a worm with the speed in which it spread.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:18:44PM -0400, Tim Peeler wrote:
> In the last 4-5 days we have had 8 servers come under attack. We are
> w
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:15:28PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> (This version of the message sent to you personally in the off chance
> that you're not subscribed to debian-security@lists.debian.org; sorry
> for not doing it via Cc:, but I forgot.)
>
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003
Followup:
This has caused problems on some of our old potato systems as well.
It appears to be a worm with the speed in which it spread.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:18:44PM -0400, Tim Peeler wrote:
> In the last 4-5 days we have had 8 servers come under attack. We are
> w
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:15:28PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> (This version of the message sent to you personally in the off chance
> that you're not subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sorry
> for not doing it via Cc:, but I forgot.)
>
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0400
exploit. We have begun upgrading to
a backport of the testing version of ssh which appears to be helping.
Tim Peeler
exploit. We have begun upgrading to
a backport of the testing version of ssh which appears to be helping.
Tim Peeler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14 matches
Mail list logo
