Possible security hole

From: Christoforos Karatzinis (chkaat_private)
Date: Fri Mar 26 1999 - 09:13:37 PST

  • Next message: Mixter: "Re: ADM Worm. Worm for Linux x86 found in wild."

    Hi,
    
       I tried to ping a NT box with FW1 installed while it was booting. I
    don't know if this is bad (I believe that it is) but look the ping
    replies:
    
    $ ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    PING xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=25 ttl=122 time=48.3 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=26 ttl=122 time=104.3 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=27 ttl=122 time=115.4 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=28 ttl=122 time=130.9 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=29 ttl=122 time=142.5 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=30 ttl=122 time=158.7 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=31 ttl=122 time=162.6 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=32 ttl=122 time=68.4 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=33 ttl=122 time=57.1 ms
    64 bytes from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=34 ttl=122 time=68.5 ms
    
    --- xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ping statistics ---
    49 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 79% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max = 48.3/105.6/162.6 ms
    
    The first 25 packets were lost before the interface's initialization. The
    packets with sequence number greater than 34 are droped from the firewall.
    What about the packets with sequence number 25-34? Is it possible that
    someone can use this time (after the interface's initialization and before
    the firewall's initialization) to do something bad?
    
    Regards,
    Christofer
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:40:44 PDT