('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) In-Reply-To: <20020203200648.D29404at_private> >Received: (qmail 26091 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 03:28:24 -0000 >Received: from outgoing2.securityfocus.com (HELO outgoing.securityfocus.com) (66.38.151.26) > by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 03:28:24 -0000 >Received: from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com [66.38.151.19]) > by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP > id B27238F290; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:57:53 - 0700 (MST) >Mailing-List: contact vuln-dev- helpat_private; run by ezmlm >Precedence: bulk >List-Id: <vuln-dev.list-id.securityfocus.com> >List-Post: <mailto:vuln-devat_private> >List-Help: <mailto:vuln-dev- helpat_private> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:vuln-dev- unsubscribeat_private> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:vuln-dev- subscribeat_private> >Delivered-To: mailing list vuln- devat_private >Delivered-To: moderator for vuln- devat_private >Received: (qmail 16036 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 02:05:46 -0000 >Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:06:48 -0600 >From: Jose well, i published the 001 bug a long time ago on the bugreport forum of mirc. I thought first that it was not exploitble. http://trout.snt.utwente.nl:82/showflat.pl? Cat=&Board=bugreports&Number=34363&page=26& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=186&fpart= posted on 02/11/01, since then about 92 views, but no reply. The bug is fixed in mirc 6.0, so i don't know why everybody is talking about "no patch". Greets, eSDee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 09:02:26 PST