Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts
From: <bill.noren () paetec com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:56:00 -0400
That's not what I said - sorry if I wasn't clear; see the highlight below. I referred to "numbers", not "protocols" on purpose based on what I said prior to that in the same e-mail. I'm not a programmer by any stretch of the imagination but I found it curious that the C library had no kind of error checking for valid values in the protocol field. It basically "did what it was told". And that may be incredibly obvious to some of you out there so please be kind! Cheers, -Bill (The Code Thief - "Cuz I can't come up with my own") ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Wesley McGrew" <rwm8 () CSE MsState EDU> To: <Noren, Bill> Cc: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts
I just don't see how this supports your conclusion that there are more protocols that cause failure.
Wesley
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 bill.noren () paetec com wrote:
witnessed failures on the following port numbers: 53, 55, 77, 103, 309
and
823. I did NOT get a failure on protocol 46 as someone else here
suggested
(do you have details on that?). Note that if you only count the right
most
8 bits of 309 and 823, they are the same as 53 and 55 respectively so there's probably a couple more numbers that also cause the failure.
____^^^^^^^____ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts bill.noren (Jul 23)
- Re: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts Robert Wesley McGrew (Jul 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts bill.noren (Jul 24)
- Re: Cisco Bug 44020 - Final Thoughts Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 24)