Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fub!dobag.in-berlin.de!lumpi From: lumpi@dobag.in-berlin.de (Joern Lubkoll) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386 Keywords: BAD BUG Message-ID: <5A5NKHK@dobag.in-berlin.de> Date: 12 Feb 91 22:51:45 GMT References: <1991Feb11.184130.11321@jwt.UUCP> <1991Feb12.052336.29639@motcad.portal.com> Organization: Dobag Computer Systems Berlin Lines: 20 jtc@motcad.portal.com (J.T. Conklin) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.184130.11321@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >>In article lumpi@dobag.in-berlin.de (Joern Lubkoll) writes: >>>it seems that your very cute interactive unix System has a nice bug ! >> >>Yikes. This also works on ESIX-D without a coprocessor, and on ISC 2.0.2 >>*with* a coprocessor. It failed on Microport 2.2 with a coprocessor. >> >>Now, the question is, what do we do to protect ourselves in the meantime? >If I remember correctly, Sun Microsystems sent out a fixed version of >sendmail to its customer base free of charge the week after the Internet >Worm Attack. I see no reason why we should expect less from the i386 >UNIX vendors. In my opinion, any vendor that doesn't respond to this >problem with the attention it is due, doesn't deserve to be in business. so mote it be ... says me :-) jl -- lumpi@dobag.in-berlin.de -- "Nothing is the complete absence of everything."