Re: Remote count.cgi exploit mods

• Previous message: Vit Andrusevich: "SCO POP remote root exploit"
• Maybe in reply to: _ _: "Remote count.cgi exploit mods"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

I wrote to the author of wwwcount, including the bugtraq traffic messages
and asking "The question is simply wether there is a secure version 2.3,
or should all users move to 2.4."


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: ma_muquitat_private
To: angusat_private
Subject: Re: SECURITY: wwwcount


Everyone should use 2.4. I tried my best to scrutinize 2.4 as much as I
can for all possible buffer overflow (and other security) problems.
Note, I update the distribution occasionally. It was last updated:
May-09-1998.

Version 2.3 archive available from the web page has the fix for the
buffer overflow (in getenv() call). But it might have other problems, so
everyone should use 2.4.

The official counter page is at URL:
    http://www.fccc.edu/users/muquit/Count.html

Take care!

--
Muhammad A Muquit, ma_muquitat_private, http://www.fccc.edu/users/muquit/

• Next message: Jeff Forys: "inetd can leak file descriptors +FIX"
• Previous message: Vit Andrusevich: "SCO POP remote root exploit"
• Maybe in reply to: _ _: "Remote count.cgi exploit mods"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:04:34 PDT