Michael Howard wrote: > the frontpage team are looking at it now - as sean noted, the iis codebase > in pws does not have this issue. i'll fwd more info to this alias as soon as > i get more info from the fp team. > > Cheers, MH > IIS Security > It seems that servers which are branded "IIS" _DO_ have the problem, and servers branded with "PWS" do NOT have the problem. For instance, the server at 24.231.6.49 returns a server version of "Microsoft-PWS-95/2.0" yet the server at 24.231.6.205 returns "Microsoft-IIS/4.0" and the server at 24.231.6.2(www.ebci.ca) returns "Microsoft-IIS/4.0 Beta 3". the *.49 server is not vulnerable, and neither is the *.2 server, but the *.205 server IS vulnerable (I told the admin of this machine about the problem, so it may be fixed by the time this reaches bugtraq.) By talking to the admin of each server, I've concluded that the *.49 server is a downloaded version of PWS, running on windows98, the *.205 server is PWS from the windows98 CD (OEM, as far as I know), running on Win98, and the *.2 server is actually IIS, running on Windows NT Server 4. Sorry about the confusion of my earlier post, hope this clears it up. My luck, it'll probably just make it worse. (-; Sean Coates seanat_private scoatesat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:29:21 PDT