Full Disclosure: Re: Apache 1.3.27 Remote Root 0-Day

[Andreas Gietl <a.gietl () e-admin de>]

Michael <mike-full () megaglobal net> wrote :

i don't actually think apache could be root-exploited directly, since it has no suid-bit and does usually not run as 
root. This was why i did not react to it.

Maybe the author wanted to report a new worm that first exploits apache and then does a local-root-exploit.

But i don't believe a direct apache-root-exploit exists, unless apache is misconfigured or using suexec or kind of that.

> Maybe now we can STFU and concentrate on actual disclosure?
> I'm curious as to why there has been no discussion about this apache report.
>
> The poster of this message didnt include any info on the details of the
> problem
> nor an exploit, which leaves us wondering.  (The insult was cute though)
>
> This could be some serious isht if indeed it is true.
>
> Can anyone confirm/dispute?
>
>
> -M 
>
> --
> . Michael Jastremski
> .............................................................
> .. Network Engineer &gt; Megaglobal Networks &gt; Megaglobal.net
> .......................
> ...... Photographer &gt; Open Photo Project  &gt; Openphoto.net
> ........................
> .......... Resident &gt; West Philadelphia   &gt; Westphila.net
> ........................
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html