Home page logo
/

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Privacy leak in VeriSign's SiteFinder service #2
From: "Diego Bitencourt Contezini" <diego () redesul net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:05:55 -0300

And if someone try to ddos/attack some host that is not really, for example
wlfkqspfqwekalsdkfsdfal.com .
They will not can send a judicial process, will?
After all, would not be sent to their just to some idiot host that they
got..
And, its legally, they match all the hostnames?
For example, if cocacola.com, have there cokacola.com, the same sounds
equal.. they could to process verysign, no?
Any lawyer on the list?
On my point of view its not right.

Diego B. Contezini
(Sorry for my bad english..)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marco Ivaldi" <raptor () 0xdeadbeef info>
To: "Mark Coleman" <markc () uniontown com>
Cc: "Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>; "BUGTRAQ () SECURITYFOCUS 
COM" <BUGTRAQ () securityfocus com>; <incidents () securityfocus org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Privacy leak in VeriSign's SiteFinder service #2


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mark Coleman wrote:

TELNET YYAAHHOO.COM 25

220 sitefinder.verisign.com VeriSign mail rejector (Postfix)
mail from:source () yahoo com
250 Ok
rcpt to:user () yyaahhoo com
550 <unknown[198.252.172.254]>: Client host rejected: The domain you are
trying
to send mail to does not exist.

They could (AND SHOULD) REJECT from the initial connection, but instead
ALLOW the TO and FROM fields of the SMTP negotiation to happen.

Moreover, they're still working on this SMTP server. Just one week ago,
they were running another Postfix-like MTA, with completely different
behaviour:

root () anarch0:~# telnet kjashfjhshghgfddg.com 25
Trying 64.94.110.11...
Connected to kjashfjhshghgfddg.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 snubby1-wcwest Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 ready
helo foo
250 OK
mail from:test () test com
250 OK
rcpt to:nospam () 0xdeadbeef info
250 OK
data
221 snubby1-wcwest Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 closing transmission
channelConnection closed by foreign host.

What if Verisign is planning to open more similar TCP/IP services on that
host? What if they're going to further modify the existing ones, to better
invade individuals' privacy?

:raptor
-- 
Marco Ivaldi
Antifork Research, Inc.   http://0xdeadbeef.info/
3B05 C9C5 A2DE C3D7 4233  0394 EF85 2008 DBFD B707



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]