Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!lindy!sumex-aim!chavez
From: chavez@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (R. Martin Chavez)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: sendmail security
Keywords: Next
Message-ID: <1126@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 23 Nov 88 04:13:57 GMT
References: <17846@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <3638@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <28185@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <7528@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <28193@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@lindy.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: chavez@sumex-aim.UUCP (R. Martin Chavez)
Organization: Medical Computer Science Group, Stanford University
Lines: 17

In article <28193@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>In article <7528@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> kean@mist.cs.orst.edu (Kean Stump) writes:
>>Would someone who has a NeXT check to see if the 0.8 release has the
>>(ahem) recent security patches to sendmail/ftpd/fingerd implemented ?
>>(Or, you can tell me the name/internet # of you machine and I'll
>>check 8}}}})
>
>It appears that that hole may have been plugged since as early as 0.3.

It's not clear that NeXT's internet machine is actually a NeXT
machine.  The machine at 129.18.1.2 claims to run 4.2bsd, so 
I'd wager that it's a VAX or somesuch.

NeXT.COM doesn't accept connections on TCP port 79, so I doubt 
that there's a problem with their fingerd.

Marty