"Paul Tinsley" <pdt_at_jackhammer.org> wrote:
> Microsoft owns up to the exploit being usable on 135, 139 and 445, I have
> heard rumors of port 80 being vulnerable as well. ...
Brad Bemis is right -- other ports (and not just port 80) associated
with IIS _if_ COM Internet Services is enabled are also exploitable.
> ... I was curious as to
> whether anyone had seen anything using a port other than 135? ...
Look for messages by Todd Sabin in Bugtraq and/or NTBugtraq and/or
VulnWatch and/or Full-Disclosure for more details.
> ... Everything I
> have seen discussed here and elsewhere has been 135 specific.
Well, it is the most widely supported default interface that is
vulnerable. It would be a very unusual machine that is vulnerable on
some other port and _NOT_ on 135, so what is the payoff for writing an
exploit (at least a "prrof of concept") that tries other ports?
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Received on Aug 01 2003
Intro
