BugTraq
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 07 2004 08:56AM
Ventsislav Genchev (vigour atlantis bg) (2 replies)
RE: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 12 2004 11:21AM
Taylan Develioglu (percival devnull nl)
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 08 2004 06:26PM
Darren Reed (avalon caligula anu edu au) (1 replies)
In some mail from Ventsislav Genchev, sie said:
>
> I've tested the attack on 4 machines..
> The first two were running windows 98 SE with all patches and service
> packs... the CPU stuck the 100% as soon as the attack started..
>
> The last two machines were running Fedora Core 1 Linux and RedHat Linux
> 9... no success here... the attack seems not to bother the normal work
> of the PCs... The RedHat Linux uses kernel-2.4.20-30.9...

Is there any real point in testing Windows 9*, still ?
Does anyone care, including Microsoft, enough to want it fixed rather
than get people to upgrade to something that is better when it comes
to security, overall ?

This is approaching 6 years plus in age and has surely got to be in
the "so what" category by now. Similarly, IE4 has dropped off the
things to check and you didn't test with Linux 2.2 or 2.0 or whatever
else is of similar same vintage (not that I would expect any difference in
terms of results).

[ reply ]
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 09 2004 11:29AM
gandalf digital net (1 replies)
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 09 2004 05:56PM
Darren Reed (avalon caligula anu edu au) (1 replies)
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 09 2004 10:59PM
gandalf digital net (1 replies)
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 10 2004 01:23PM
Darren Reed (avalon caligula anu edu au) (1 replies)
Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 10 2004 04:22PM
gandalf digital net


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus