Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: [BLACKLIST] [Full-disclosure] Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on yournetwork? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:15:37 +0100 |
It's a bug. I recall it being found and fixed in AIX many years ago. Embarassing for Sun that it's still in Solaris, though.
It's not "still" in Solaris; it's the first time it occurred in Solaris; it is stupid it did but it's a typical programming error: passing unchecked arguments to a program without escaping special characters.
A quick Google search found Usenet postings about it from 1994; I'm sure it was known well before then.
As far as I remember, the "-f" option to login was a BSDism (4.4?); it did not exist in platforms derived from earlier BSDs when it came to rlogin/rshd. The original rlogind would either run the protocol in in.rlogind and skip login or the protocol was implemented in login itself. Later, the protocol processing was put in rlogind but it always went through login. This code then was reimplemented by an IBM employee in AIX and later also, by the same person, for Linux, giving rise to the first occurrence of the -froot bug. Solaris did add the -f option to login much later but it wasn't until a complete integration of ktelnet was done that this bug arose in Solaris 10. It's just a very usual (and unfortunate) reimplementation of the same bug. Casper
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network?, Gadi Evron |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on your network?, Gadi Evron |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [BLACKLIST] [Full-disclosure] Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on yournetwork?, Michael Wojcik |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [BLACKLIST] [Full-disclosure] Solaris telnet vulnberability - how many on yournetwork?, Gadi Evron |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |