('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
In-Reply-To: <20020203200648.D29404_at_ksu.edu>
>Received: (qmail 26091 invoked from network); 4
Feb 2002 03:28:24 -0000
>Received: from outgoing2.securityfocus.com
(HELO outgoing.securityfocus.com) (66.38.151.26)
> by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002
03:28:24 -0000
>Received: from lists.securityfocus.com
(lists.securityfocus.com [66.38.151.19])
> by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix)
with QMQP
> id B27238F290; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:57:53 -
0700 (MST)
>Mailing-List: contact vuln-dev-
help_at_securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Id: <vuln-dev.list-id.securityfocus.com>
>List-Post: <mailto:vuln-dev_at_securityfocus.com>
>List-Help: <mailto:vuln-dev-
help_at_securityfocus.com>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:vuln-dev-
unsubscribe_at_securityfocus.com>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:vuln-dev-
subscribe_at_securityfocus.com>
>Delivered-To: mailing list vuln-
dev_at_securityfocus.com
>Delivered-To: moderator for vuln-
dev_at_securityfocus.com
>Received: (qmail 16036 invoked from network); 4
Feb 2002 02:05:46 -0000
>Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:06:48 -0600
>From: Jose
well, i published the 001 bug a long time ago on the
bugreport forum of mirc. I thought first that it was not
exploitble.
http://trout.snt.utwente.nl:82/showflat.pl?
Cat=&Board=bugreports&Number=34363&page=26&
view=collapsed&sb=5&o=186&fpart=
posted on 02/11/01, since then about 92 views, but
no reply.
The bug is fixed in mirc 6.0, so i don't know why
everybody is talking about "no patch".
Greets,
eSDee
Received on Feb 05 2002
Intro
