Colocated Unix Server - $29/Monthhome | about | all articles | all authors | all comments | download | search
submit article | loopback commentaries | editor in chief

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

jesus@pentagon.com2003-09-30
Linenoisephrack 61-3

About the disk bomb, its nail polish remover - acetone. But alot of nail polish remover isn't acetone so you might want to check that. Or go and buy a 2L bottle from the chemist like I did >:D. Of course you need a bloody good excuse for something like a 2L bottle, say something about a home chem prac for school blah blah.



slashdotuser@yahoo.com2003-09-30
The Cerberus ELF interfacephrack 61-8

took me a couple of hours to follow to the 'T' but it worked pretty decently. congrats



w@isthat.cat2003-09-23
Loopbackphrack 61-2

0x0a's message should be sent to the darwin awards for obvious reasons.

Mazerunner



cc@unKNown.com2003-09-23
Loopbackphrack 61-2

I just want to say that these are some funny posts, I laughed my a@@ off!! I would also like to say that I really can relate to the article written by Richard Thieme and it is a really good piece of work!!!!!

ccKid



Secure-it@sarunet.de2003-09-22
Fun with the Spanning Tree Protocolphrack 61-12

Nice article, but after reading it is comprehensible for me, that the network manufacturers didn't react: because of no necessity.
The attacks that were described are not practical in a proper secured LAN:

1) All user ports have STP disabeled (the authors mentioned that)
2) All user ports have port security enabled, that means that only the MAC of normaly attached end station is allowed, no other (that the authors forgot, but is of greatest concern!)
3) All tagged ports are configured to drop untagged frames, all untagged ports are configured to drop tagged frames (it is somehow mentioned, but not explicitly)
4) All your ports have a port based vlan association (only 1 vlan per user port): This can be configured statically or you use a VLAN-Policy-Server. (not explicitly mentioned)
5) Physical access control to all network equipment in the company (not mentioned)

When this is given (and most companies implement that), you have hardly a chance to attack the STP. When you have access to an end station (maybe you are employed there), you have only access to the network through your single NIC. Any attempt of attaching a second NIC or any other computer will be blocked by port security. When sending faked BPDUs, these will be dropped by the switch because STP is disabled on all user ports. When trying to send faked BPDUs or any other frame with faked VLAN-Tagg, again these will be dropped.

And there is a big fault in this text: the authors give the security advice (Quick Fix) of disabling STP on all user ports. If you do that whithout having port security enabled, you have an possible security leck. An attacker needs only to plug a crossed cable between two ports (on 1 switch or even better on 2 switches). Then you potentially have a loop in the network, that cannot be detected by STP (it is disabled on these ports). This affect would be looping user traffic (broadcasts) that will could lead to a DoS of the attacked switch(es).

Thanx n bye
Secure-it Team



papaye@sucemelabien.org2003-09-16
Fun with the Spanning Tree Protocolphrack 61-12


A less enjoying comment than the others :

- too theorical
- implementation (???? one source code) is buggy (two stack overflows in it)

MrAcrim0ny : attacks on 802.1q are yet well knows, such as STP ones. Interaction between STP and VLAN mecanism is reduced to the use of what is called a native VLAN (which is used to forward traffic not assigned to a specific VLAN, typically protocols like STP,VTP ...). So attacks apply.



theaccuser@admit-it.com2003-09-14
Loopbackphrack 61-2

I accuse the phrackstaff of making 0x0a up themselves.



rasilon@galifrey.planet2003-09-05
Introductionphrack 61-1

Great to see the new Phrack. In a former life I wrote for several of the early Phrack issues back in the 80's and it's great to see it still going strong. The Metal Shop crew probably would not have guessed that it would reach 61 issues back when we were putting together issue #1 in 1985. I sometimes miss the older school telephony and non-coding types of articles, but it's clear that the writing is excellent (even if some of it is clearly over my personal knowledge level). keep up the great work




The Quaf2003-09-01
Loopbackphrack 61-2

I laughed my ass off at most of them, especially the one with Mr.Ping King. What is it with some of these people? It's like they see a site with "hacker stuff" and they cream their pants trying to be accepted as a hacker into whatever security group/ect that they are posting at. Here's a thought, read some of the articles and learn how to do shit before even thinking about writing a tutorial; especially to write a tutorial about somthing so trivial. When I see a buffer overflow tutorial come from you then I'll consider you a real hacker.



greg[at]xiph.org2003-08-29
Polymorphic Shellcode Enginephrack 61-9

It occurred to me while reading this that it would be possible to insert cram sections inside the encrypted shell-code itself. Since the cypher, although multibyte, is still simply a rotating chain of single byte codebooks, it would be possible to overwrite sections with random numbers after encryption. When the data is decrypted, these sections will be junk.. but thats okay because the shellcode could just jump over them. Hooks could be added to several places in the shellcode where these random sections would be permitted. When generating the encrypted shellcode, we would randomly decide to insert cramdata at those permitted points (along with the required jump to keep things working), then remember these positions and after encryption go back and overwrite them with the data of our choice. This will seriously frustrate multibyte analysis techniques which would otherwise easily see through the short cycle byte encryption.

The approach presented in this article could also be enhanced by taking the simple byte wide statistical modeling and using bi- or tri- byte freq tables, or even using markov modeling to generate cover data.



xaribelle@yahoo.com2003-08-26
Toolz Armoryphrack 61-4

Packit seems to be custom made for Snort. Testing my rules against it, i was able to find some flaws which hadnt been documented by other similar utilities. Thanks



fred@mindmode.ca2003-08-26
The Cerberus ELF interfacephrack 61-8

hey mayhem! still alive :)
nice paper, keep up the good work!
endrix-



prozak@anus.com2003-08-25
Introductionphrack 61-1

New issue of Phrack, lotion, and tissues. It's gonna be a long night!




nelle_b15@yahoo.com2003-08-25
Building IA32 'Unicode-Proof' Shellcodesphrack 61-11

Thank you very much from this very nice and well documented org.



.@i.com2003-08-23
Phrack World Newsphrack 61-15

about the dude going to jail for the site liked ti bomb-making...here is the quote from the article that I liked...

"he also may not associate with anyone from a group that 'espouses physical force as a means of change.'"

(Bush-cough-cough-iraq-cough) excuse me ;)



clow_card666@yahoo.com2003-08-22
Linenoisephrack 61-3

on that diskette bomb

lol, why is it that the red matces dont work? some people have told me that its because the matches have fosforous, and that the other ones have a diferent kind of igniter. could anyone know? the badpart about giving this to someone is that they WILL know it was you. If you are at school, like i am, its easier to leave them halfway inside the drive. Some people will check out what the diskette has, and others might need a diskette so they will take it. you can just be around to see the guy get the pc meltdown hehe. at least you wont get the blame, you know

-------------------------------bootlog, aspiring wanna-be hacker



sacrine@netric.org2003-08-19
Fun with the Spanning Tree Protocolphrack 61-12

Verry nice article.

good work :)



sacrine@netric.org2003-08-19
Hacking the Linux Kernel Network Stackphrack 61-13

I was very pleased after reading this article
it is well written.


regards, sacrine



bumbumdumb@2die4.com2003-08-17
Loopbackphrack 61-2

Heh, that's my e-mail account for real, I was just going to comment that I think you guys should put "A hackers manifesto" in each release of phrack, like at the end or something. That's all.



mayhem@devhell.org2003-08-16
The Cerberus ELF interfacephrack 61-8



The 'malloc problem' on solaris was resolved, in 0.51b3. The _end, _edata, and _END_ symbols
are now changed in .dynsym instead of .symtab :>



lerning@itall2003-08-15
Basic Integer Overflowsphrack 60-10

Very nice article! Goes to show that understanding the fundamentals of computing is essential :)



ian@pot.com2003-08-15
Introductionphrack 61-1

AHHHHHHHHHHH.......

the time between issues brings me GREAT tension. but everytime a new episode arrives, i let out a great sigh of relief.



no@no.com2003-08-14
Loopbackphrack 61-2

these are some of the funniest mail replies i have ever read.

i didn't put my email in, but i'll probably be hacked anyway.
...
phooey



mwood@nwinfo.net2003-08-14
Loopbackphrack 61-2

lol, funny stuff. I think 0x0d deserves a regular column. pretty please??? ;)



xcoyote@soliphion.com2003-08-14
Loopbackphrack 61-2

Hehe, that was a good read, espescially the guy that sent in the article about ping which phrack staff so ever brilliantry compressed into one line.

Keep up the good work!



[1]
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]