Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Linux inetd..
From: avalon () COOMBS ANU EDU AU (Darren Reed)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:31:23 +1100
Linux's accept behaviour has been that way (returning before the connection gets to ESTABLISHED) for quite some time. You'll find even 1.2.x vulnerable to that sort of scanning, maybe even 1.0.x. One of the really annoying things about accept() behaving like this is that the remote socket information can be gone before accept() has a chance to store it in your `sockaddr_in', requiring a packet sniffer of some variety before you know who/what/where is scanning your active ports. Darren
Current thread:
- Sun Security Bulletin #00159 (fwd), (continued)
- Sun Security Bulletin #00159 (fwd) Howie (Dec 03)
- Sun Security Bulletin #00160 (fwd) Howie (Dec 03)
- Q165005: Windows NT Slows Down Due to Land Attack Aleph One (Dec 04)
- Q177539: Windows 95 Stops Responding Because of Land Attack Aleph One (Dec 04)
- More telnet Daemon Fun Aaron Campbell (Dec 01)
- Re: More telnet Daemon Fun Elliot Lee (Dec 02)
- tcsh/Solaris (Re: More telnet Daemon Fun) Peter Radcliffe (Dec 03)
- scoterm exploit Aleph One (Dec 04)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Alan Cox (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Darren Reed (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Darren Reed (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. G P R (Dec 01)
- Sendmail quirks Duck Vader (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. der Mouse (Dec 15)