frank at ...9761...
Wed Sep 17 10:04:14 EDT 2003
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 10:09, Sean T. Ballard wrote:
> Just because the exploit code itself is not public is no excuse to not
> be cautious about it. SSH has always a touchy service already, and I try
> limit its uses in general just because of its exploitive history.
heh.... yeah, but I think everyone is chasing rumors here. I would like
to focus on the determination IF it is an exploitable bug or not. At the
moment is doesn't appear to be exploitable. So how the hell can there be
exploit code? Are we believing the 14 year olds that want to discredit
I think we have the capability to determine if it's exploitable or not.
Yet only a few are doing so. Those that did can't find an attack vector.
If we can not look at security issues from an analytical perspective,
and only play info FUD with wild announcements, then I'm afraid we have
learned nothing over the last decade and are doomed....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Snort-users