On 14 March 2017 at 09:06, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> From this document (TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN):
> https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/files/NOD%20Cryptographic%
> 20Requirements%20v1.1%20TOP%20SECRET.pdf
>
> version 1.0 said:
>
> | 8. (S//NF) [...] If RC4 is used, at least the first 1024
> | by
From this document (TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN):
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/files/NOD%20Cryptographic%20Requirements%20v1.1%20TOP%20SECRET.pdf
version 1.0 said:
| 8. (S//NF) [...] If RC4 is used, at least the first 1024
| bytes of the cryptostream must be discarded and may not be used
and tha
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> grarpamp writes:
>> https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=freebsd
> That doesn't indicate a vulnerability. Shell code is what you use to
Yep, sec folks are aware of the difference between
sample and exploit code, and vulnerabilities.
https
grarpamp writes:
> https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=freebsd
>
> Currently returns many pages similarly named...
>
> "Shell Code Database
> This page includes local links to a shellcode
> database discovered at shell-storm.org."
That doesn't indicate a vulnerability. Shell code is what you use to
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=freebsd
Currently returns many pages similarly named...
"Shell Code Database
This page includes local links to a shellcode
database discovered at shell-storm.org."
(And a pentest report mention from much older HBGary.
Plus some other unlikely miscellaneous hits.)