Re: kernel bug -> security problem

Philippe Strauss (philou@sicel-home-1-4.urbanet.ch)
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:57:41 +0200 (MET DST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Rob Glover: "Re: Byte article - 64 bit Unix"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: But why?"
In reply to: Dieter Kaeppel: "Re: Memory upgrade: not faster / nfs"
Next in thread: Jon Lewis: "Re: kernel bug -> security problem"

Shinanyaku wrote:
>
> Gary Schrock was heard saying ....
> # And, apparently, not everyone is affected. I just went from 2.0.22 to
> # 2.0.23 and still do not seem to have that bug:
> #
> # I'll attach my .config file for my linux kernel so that if anyone wants to
> # look through it to see what's different between my configuration that
>
> # # CONFIG_FIREWALL is not set
> # # CONFIG_NET_ALIAS is not set
> # CONFIG_INET=3Dy
> # # CONFIG_IP_FORWARD is not set
> # # CONFIG_IP_MULTICAST is not set
> # # CONFIG_IP_ACCT is not set
> #
>
> My configuration is almost identical to this one (and I suffered from
> the bug) except for IP_FORWARD which I have enabled. Is there /ANY/
> chance that might have something to do with it? (I'm pulling at
> straws, here, I know).
>
> What about everyone else? If you are affected by this bug, do you have
> IP_FORWARD enabled?
>

Yeap, i also have ip_forward enabled, and was crashable before patching.
But don't forget that the ping bug in win95 seem to have disappeared
in recent service pack. It seems that only plain old stock Wimps95
have the overlong icmp packet bug.

-- Philippe Strauss, CH-1092 Belmont

Email: <philippe.strauss@urbanet.ch> Homepage: http://sicel-home-1-4.urbanet.ch

Next message: Rob Glover: "Re: Byte article - 64 bit Unix"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: But why?"
In reply to: Dieter Kaeppel: "Re: Memory upgrade: not faster / nfs"
Next in thread: Jon Lewis: "Re: kernel bug -> security problem"