Mailing List Archive For incidents@securityfocus.com Jul 2003 By Date

• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:16:39 EDT
  • Suspicious firewall logs Wong Wai Kit 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 19:27:39 EDT
  • ISS command line scanner for RPC/DCOM vulnerability Russell Fulton 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:49:36 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Paul Tinsley 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:44:56 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Paul Tinsley 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 19:45:25 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? De Doncker, Steve 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:19:39 EDT
  • Re: RPC DCOM exploit morning_wood 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:01:51 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Glenn Rossi 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:00:25 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Rodrigo Barbosa 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:26:14 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Russell Fulton 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 14:40:16 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Justin Pryzby 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 13:54:53 EDT
  • RPC DCOM exploit Peter Fry 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 12:36:27 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Christopher Cramer 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 12:28:10 EDT
  • RE: Scans for 17300/tcp starting again Esler, Joel Contractor 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 12:23:29 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Brad Bemis 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 12:06:18 EDT
  • RE: Scans for 17300/tcp starting again DeGennaro, Gregory 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:12:46 EDT
  • Re: Scans for 17300/tcp starting again Joe Matusiewicz 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:30:31 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Schmehl, Paul L 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 14:29:28 EDT
  • Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Sam Baskinger 
• Thu Jul 31 2003 - 08:42:27 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Chris Shepherd 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 22:03:45 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Stuart 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 20:13:31 EDT
  • Scans for 17300/tcp starting again jchaser(at)yahoo.com 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:50:38 EDT
  • Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Jordan Wiens 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 14:10:00 EDT
  • Re: Importance of outbound traffic filtering Barry Fitzgerald 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:58:07 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Jose Antonio Alvarez 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:41:50 EDT
  • Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Gary Flynn 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 16:59:07 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Rodrigo Barbosa 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:16:39 EDT
  • Re: new worm? or DDoS attack in progress Birl 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:34:22 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? VanMeter, John 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 14:25:14 EDT
  • Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Michael Wright 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:33:31 EDT
  • RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? Schmehl, Paul L 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:37:18 EDT
  • Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? David Kyle Sayre 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 17:16:03 EDT
  • Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner? JAMIE CRAWFORD 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 09:58:42 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Chris Shepherd 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:16:11 EDT
  • Re: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Christian Kieft 
• Wed Jul 30 2003 - 11:04:59 EDT
  • Re: floods through our proxy mms 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 17:56:50 EDT
  • new worm? or DDoS attack in progress Jon Zobrist 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 16:47:45 EDT
  • floods through our proxy Jon Zobrist 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:15:52 EDT
  • RE: Scan of TCP 552-554 Frank Knobbe 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:24:22 EDT
  • Re: Anyone know this tool? Jason Falciola 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:10:02 EDT
  • Re: Anyone know this tool? Danny 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:04:47 EDT
  • Re: Anyone know this tool? Danny 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:09:33 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Jeff Adams 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 12:57:16 EDT
  • Re: Anyone know this tool? Jason Falciola 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 12:42:06 EDT
  • RE: Anyone know this tool? James Williams 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:11:21 EDT
  • Re: Anyone know this tool? Jason Rumney 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:47:17 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Sumit 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 03:31:44 EDT
  • RE: Scan of TCP 552-554 Nick Nauwelaerts 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 01:38:22 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Paul Tinsley 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 23:24:16 EDT
  • Anyone know this tool? Danny 
• Tue Jul 29 2003 - 01:28:38 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Paul Tinsley 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:24:51 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Salvatore Poliandro 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 07:03:48 EDT
  • Re: "access_log?hello" ? Shafik Yaghmour 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:47:06 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Rodrigo Barbosa 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:49:26 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Frank Knobbe 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:54:38 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Rodrigo Barbosa 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 14:15:57 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! James C. Slora, Jr. 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:40:15 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Russell Harding 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:37:21 EDT
  • RE: email worm? Newsletter, aaa.exe, caraoke ksp.exe James C. Slora, Jr. 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:24:52 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack Russell Harding 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:15:17 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Eric Appelboom 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 00:27:58 EDT
  • RE: email worm? Newsletter, aaa.exe, caraoke ksp.exe Dowling, Gabrielle 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 10:59:17 EDT
  • New or old PHP worm? Gerrit Hannaert 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 07:14:29 EDT
  • Re: Is this enough to identify this by? Harlan Carvey 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 18:19:28 EDT
  • Re: [security-elvandar] "access_log?hello" ? Remko Lodder 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 21:03:24 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack sa7ori 
• Mon Jul 28 2003 - 01:01:38 EDT
  • RE: First time security issue. Dowling, Gabrielle 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 18:33:34 EDT
  • Re: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! tEA-TiME 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 18:08:22 EDT
  • Re: [security-elvandar] "access_log?hello" ? Salvatore Poliandro 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 16:16:54 EDT
  • Re: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! morning_wood 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 14:42:19 EDT
  • RE: Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Eric Appelboom 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 14:36:51 EDT
  • Re: [security-elvandar] "access_log?hello" ? Remko Lodder 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:22:53 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Rodrigo Barbosa 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 13:44:05 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack Jason Falciola 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:18:38 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Andreas Östling 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 21:22:27 EDT
  • Is this enough to identify this by? Robin Lynn Frank 
• Sat Jul 26 2003 - 03:16:45 EDT
  • "access_log?hello" ? Christine Kronberg 
• Sat Jul 26 2003 - 14:31:14 EDT
  • First Time Security Incident madboo 
• Sat Jul 26 2003 - 04:33:29 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Matt Scarborough 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 09:51:00 EDT
  • Heavy port 1214 traffic revisited Mika  
• Sat Jul 26 2003 - 09:36:51 EDT
  • email worm? Newsletter, aaa.exe, caraoke ksp.exe Michael J. Pomraning 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 21:26:43 EDT
  • RE: Port 0 packets Stuart 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 21:17:36 EDT
  • RE: Port 0 packets Toby Miller 
• Sun Jul 27 2003 - 08:11:09 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Giles Coochey 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 15:45:35 EDT
  • Exploit for Windows RPC may be in the wild! Compton, Rich 
• Sat Jul 26 2003 - 14:04:02 EDT
  • email worm? Newsletter, aaa.exe, caraoke ksp.exe (fwd) Michael J. Pomraning 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:53:47 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Dave Paris 
• Fri Jul 25 2003 - 22:01:32 EDT
  • Re: New worm in Japan? sa7ori 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:04:49 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Dave Paris 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:29:57 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Richard Johnson 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 18:16:29 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Salvatore Poliandro 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 20:06:38 EDT
  • RE: Port 0 packets Stuart 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 23:47:07 EDT
  • RE: New worm in Japan? Trenten Healy 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 19:10:30 EDT
  • Re: Scan of TCP 552-554 Frank Knobbe 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:16:36 EDT
  • Re: New worm in Japan? morning_wood 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:20:07 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Scott A. McIntyre 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:28:06 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Dave Paris 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:38:47 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Russell Fulton 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 03:08:21 EDT
  • Scan of TCP 552-554 Bill McCarty 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:44:48 EDT
  • RE: Port 0 packets Stuart 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 13:41:14 EDT
  • New worm in Japan? James Vanvonderkinzer 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 15:27:18 EDT
  • RE: Port 0 packets Stuart 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 14:26:45 EDT
  • Re: Port 0 packets Russell Harding 
• Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:43:02 EDT
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover lee.e.rian(at)census.gov 
• Thu Jul 24 2003 - 02:49:32 EDT
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Cedric Blancher 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 20:51:40 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. ben(at)benbailey.net 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 22:58:11 EDT
  • RE: First time security issue. Bojan Zdrnja 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 18:18:24 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. John Ives 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 20:28:48 EDT
  • Port 0 packets Stuart 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 16:55:49 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Harlan Carvey 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 17:47:09 EDT
  • New SecurityFocus Articles (2) Dan Hanson 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 17:44:58 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Jack Hayes 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:45:05 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. MARLON BORBA 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:53:43 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Chris Ess 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:04:20 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Intrusense 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:01:57 EDT
  • RE: First time security issue. David Gillett 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 13:34:49 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Harlan Carvey 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:38:47 EDT
  • RE: Importance of outbound traffic filtering Jack Lyons 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:54:03 EDT
  • RE: Importance of outbound traffic filtering Stark, Vernon L. 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:45:09 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Simon Gray 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 15:45:42 EDT
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Curt Purdy 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:25:00 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. John Ives 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:50:18 EDT
  • RE: First time security issue. David Vincent 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:47:12 EDT
  • Re: First time security issue. Joe Matusiewicz 
• Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:33:25 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Keith Pachulski 
• Mon Jul 21 2003 - 17:54:30 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover lee.e.rian(at)census.gov 
• Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:47:38 EDT
  • First time security issue. ben(at)benbailey.net 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 16:14:28 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Richard Johnson 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 14:58:50 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Curt Purdy 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 09:21:35 EDT
  • RE: Windows XP Guest Account. Keith 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 07:03:12 EDT
  • Re: Cisco 0-day? [Was: strange protocol scans (and MOBP plug)] Philippe Biondi 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 03:20:45 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Richard Johnson 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 03:52:34 EDT
  • Windows XP Guest Account. Maher Odeh 
• Sun Jul 20 2003 - 01:36:57 EDT
  • Re: Cisco 0-day? [Was: strange protocol scans (and MOBP plug)] Andrew Bates 
• Sat Jul 19 2003 - 23:56:29 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability Jeff Kell 
• Sat Jul 19 2003 - 16:20:09 EDT
  • Cisco 0-day? [Was: strange protocol scans (and MOBP plug)] Michal Zalewski 
• Sat Jul 19 2003 - 14:55:47 EDT
  • strange protocol scans (and MOBP plug) Michal Zalewski 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 18:40:53 EDT
  • Re: Need some help and guidance, please....RE: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Nick FitzGerald 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 18:20:40 EDT
  • RE: Need some help and guidance, please....RE: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) George Peek 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 16:35:37 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability Andrew Bates 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 16:41:28 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Octavio Novoa 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 23:37:07 EDT
  • Re: Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? (Update) Probe Networks 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 16:32:02 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability jlewis(at)lewis.org 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 15:23:35 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability Mitchell Rowton 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 15:14:24 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Tina Bird 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 15:10:34 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability Jeff Kell 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 14:55:14 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability james 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 15:11:44 EDT
  • Re: Need some help and guidance, please....RE: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) morning_wood 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 14:51:31 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover James Fields 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 14:21:03 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Quarantine 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 09:04:15 EDT
  • RES: Cisco IOS vulnerability Gustavo Kruel 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 08:42:30 EDT
  • RE: Strange 4 MB Emails Keith 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 09:55:23 EDT
  • Need some help and guidance, please....RE: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Maria J. Vello 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 10:12:48 EDT
  • Importance of outbound traffic filtering Stark, Vernon L. 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 07:45:52 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Paul Benedek 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 13:08:13 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability wangw(at)singnet.com.sg 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 07:28:32 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Quarantine 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 04:43:33 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Barry Irwin 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 12:37:22 EDT
  • Cisco ISO vul patch for packit 0.6.0c Darren Bounds 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 06:23:45 EDT
  • RE: Strange 4 MB Emails Donald Voss 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 06:01:39 EDT
  • DOS / gameservers mailinglist(at)xebec.de 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 07:36:40 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Quarantine 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 03:01:30 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Abraham, Antony (Cognizant) 
• Fri Jul 18 2003 - 01:30:01 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Tina Bird 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 23:09:29 EDT
  • Strange 4 MB Emails Dave 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 14:59:07 EDT
  • RE: Strange domain-udp signature Stong, Ian C. (Contractor) 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 20:24:10 EDT
  • RE: Strange domain-udp signature Ed Allen Smith 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 14:46:26 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Jim Duncan 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 14:44:11 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Paul Benedek 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 16:32:11 EDT
  • Re: Cisco IOS vulnerability James Fields 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 18:42:32 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Darrell Kristof 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 17:19:46 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability David Gillett 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 15:10:51 EDT
  • RE: Strange domain-udp signature Sudom, Don 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 14:34:06 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability Quarantine 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 14:46:22 EDT
  • RE: Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Jeremy Junginger 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 13:23:03 EDT
  • RE: Strange domain-udp signature Sudom, Don 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 10:14:01 EDT
  • Cisco IOS vulnerability Gustavo Kruel 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 06:45:16 EDT
  • RE: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Roland Venter 
• Thu Jul 17 2003 - 01:05:40 EDT
  • Cisco IOS Denial of Service that affects most Cisco IOS routers- requires power cycle to recover Johnson, April 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 19:33:38 EDT
  • Re: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Roger A. Grimes 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 22:20:30 EDT
  • Re: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Kevin Patz 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 18:48:03 EDT
  • Re: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay David A. Ulevitch 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 11:45:01 EDT
  • RE: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Johnson, April 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 10:22:04 EDT
  • RE: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Still, Kirsty 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 07:22:04 EDT
  • re: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Harlan Carvey 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 01:45:44 EDT
  • RE: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Dowling, Gabrielle 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 13:16:14 EDT
  • Re: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay Frank Knobbe 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 09:23:01 EDT
  • Re: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Jeff Bollinger 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 07:44:48 EDT
  • Re: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay David A. Ulevitch 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:37:53 EDT
  • Re: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Kevin Patz 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 01:55:48 EDT
  • Re: Strange domain-udp signature Ed Allen Smith 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 11:49:06 EDT
  • Re: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 John Leach 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 06:02:48 EDT
  • Re: DNS Messages Christoph K 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 02:01:02 EDT
  • Re: TROJAN: Symantec: New Serious Virus found. (fwd) Patrick Nolan 
• Wed Jul 16 2003 - 06:52:31 EDT
  • Re: Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 James C. Slora Jr. 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 19:14:28 EDT
  • Re: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay Roberto Cardona 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 18:41:53 EDT
  • Strange domain-udp signature Sudom, Don 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 14:44:03 EDT
  • RE: New Probes Declan Ingram 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 14:10:45 EDT
  • Re: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay james 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 17:28:21 EDT
  • Patched IIS/frontpage host compromised 7-1-2003 Johnson, April 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 14:05:46 EDT
  • RE: New Probes Bruce Martins 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 16:23:10 EDT
  • RE: New Probes Stuart 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 16:49:52 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise David Gillett 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 23:21:00 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack Paul Dokas 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 17:11:26 EDT
  • RE: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack David Gillett 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 16:56:50 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack Chris Ess 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 08:01:07 EDT
  • New Probes Porter, Gary 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 17:25:50 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Leo, Joel 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 07:34:19 EDT
  • Re: www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack Sam Baskinger 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 16:35:08 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise David Vincent 
• Tue Jul 15 2003 - 01:37:17 EDT
  • RE: possible compromised host Aditya 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 21:40:21 EDT
  • Fw: qmail smtp-auth bug allows open relay james 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 16:29:42 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Deus, Attonbitus 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:29:52 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Sergey Latkin 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 13:35:36 EDT
  • www.google.com reference in directory-traversal attack sgt_b 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:04:10 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Harlan Carvey 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:13:09 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Dozal, Tim 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 13:23:23 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Dial Joe 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 00:53:38 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise LiNERROR 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 01:04:22 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise LiNERROR 
• Mon Jul 14 2003 - 05:34:54 EDT
  • RE: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise winter 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 17:16:19 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Herman Sheremetyev 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:58:38 EDT
  • RE: possible compromised host Harlan Carvey 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:56:59 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Harlan Carvey 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 16:31:17 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Harlan Carvey 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:15:13 EDT
  • ZBG Server Charles Hamby 
• Sun Jul 13 2003 - 14:04:28 EDT
  • Re: more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise Etaoin Shrdlu 
• Sat Jul 12 2003 - 20:28:32 EDT
  • Information Needed on Malicious Traffic dropped by firewalls/IPS Piyush Bhatnagar 
• Sat Jul 12 2003 - 05:15:30 EDT
  • more info on a hopefully unsuccessful compromise LiNERROR 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 16:03:46 EDT
  • Re: possible compromised host Harlan Carvey 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 17:06:38 EDT
  • RE: possible compromised host Tim Harris 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 02:57:18 EDT
  • possible compromised host LiNERROR 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 09:51:23 EDT
  • Repost of query about 55808 trojan Golden Faron P Contr HQ SSG/SWSN 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 07:56:06 EDT
  • Anyone else seeing UDP 16191 scans? Bob German 
• Fri Jul 11 2003 - 03:43:04 EDT
  • Re: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Vern Paxson 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:42:07 EDT
  • Re: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Dietmar Goldbeck 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 23:48:24 EDT
  • RE: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Bojan Zdrnja 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 20:17:16 EDT
  • RE: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Jim Butterworth 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 18:02:51 EDT
  • Re: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Mike 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 17:51:08 EDT
  • RE: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Chris Ricker 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:31:02 EDT
  • RE: Possible DOS on Cisco 2651 router? Keith Pachulski 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 15:14:45 EDT
  • Re: HTTP DDoS attack on our servers John Duksta 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 15:26:05 EDT
  • Re: HTTP DDoS attack on our servers Tim Greer 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 12:55:37 EDT
  • RE: Possible DOS on Cisco 2651 router? James Williams 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:01:26 EDT
  • Re: Strange CONNECT entries in apache logs Christian Vogel 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 12:19:21 EDT
  • RE: Information Needed on Malicious Traffic David Klotz 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 03:02:58 EDT
  • Possible DOS on Cisco 2651 router? Richard Bartlett 
• Thu Jul 10 2003 - 00:49:27 EDT
  • Re: P2P Networking and port 3531 Jake Babbin 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 21:52:17 EDT
  • Re: Strange CONNECT entries in apache logs sgaskins(at)interserv.com 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 21:22:58 EDT
  • Information Needed on Malicious Traffic Piyush Bhatnagar 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 15:08:21 EDT
  • RE: HTTP DDoS attack on our servers Golden Faron P Contr HQ SSG/SWSN 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:26:29 EDT
  • New Article: Promises, Promises Dan Hanson 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:25:26 EDT
  • Article Announcement: Antivirus Concerns in XP and .NET Environments Dan Hanson 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:58:12 EDT
  • RE: Administrivia... Mayo, Brad 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 13:30:48 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... Dan Hanson 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 18:22:58 EDT
  • RE: Administrivia... James C. Slora, Jr. 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 09:06:32 EDT
  • HTTP DDoS attack on our servers Markus Peter 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 11:07:29 EDT
  • RE: Missrouted - once more - what happens? James C. Slora, Jr. 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 05:55:00 EDT
  • RE: tcp/19150 scans Jacob Hurley 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 13:59:41 EDT
  • Re: P2P Networking and port 3531 Brian Eckman 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:24:38 EDT
  • SecurityFocus Article Announcement: U.S. Information Security Law, Part 4 Dan Hanson 
• Wed Jul 09 2003 - 05:22:25 EDT
  • decoyed IPs kahleong_fong 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 19:19:23 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... Paul J. Morris 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 18:06:10 EDT
  • P2P Networking and port 3531 James Lay 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 16:56:49 EDT
  • RE: Administrivia... David Vincent 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 16:34:34 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... Brian Eckman 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 14:01:50 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... Brandon Butterworth 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 13:15:42 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... Bernie Cosell 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 19:44:37 EDT
  • tcp/19150 scans Aaron Cheek 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 12:38:09 EDT
  • Re: Administrivia... glenn.blair(at)scotiabank.com 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 12:20:24 EDT
  • Re: frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? Jordan Wiens 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 18:43:44 EDT
  • Re: Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? (1st update:worm?) Christopher Kunz 
• Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:31:29 EDT
  • Administrivia... Dan Hanson 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 18:11:17 EDT
  • Missrouted - once more - what happens? Pawe³ Stochliñski 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 16:20:55 EDT
  • Re: Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? Jamie 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 16:11:02 EDT
  • RE: Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? (1st update:worm?) Probe Networks 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 19:29:50 EDT
  • DeepSight Extractor 4.1 Release Oliver Friedrichs 
• Sun Jul 06 2003 - 19:59:08 EDT
  • Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? Probe Networks 
• Mon Jul 07 2003 - 01:26:42 EDT
  • Strange DoS / new halflife server bug? (1st update:worm?) Probe Networks 
• Sun Jul 06 2003 - 14:25:57 EDT
  • Strange missrouted(?) Pawe³ Stochliñski 
• Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:39:51 EDT
  • RE: UDP to port 500 Mike Lyman 
• Fri Jul 04 2003 - 02:50:57 EDT
  • Re: frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? Tri Huynh 
• Fri Jul 04 2003 - 05:57:15 EDT
  • Re: Another overflow exploit for Apache? *RESOLVED* Andrew Simmons 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 18:36:17 EDT
  • RE: UDP to port 500 Charles.Fasching(at)milestonesystems.com 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 16:08:38 EDT
  • RE: Another overflow exploit for Apache? *RESOLVED* trihuynh(at)zeeup.com 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 15:39:17 EDT
  • RE: Another overflow exploit for Apache? *RESOLVED* xtm 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 15:06:34 EDT
  • RE: frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? Jordan Wiens 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 14:05:18 EDT
  • Re: frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? Eric Kimminau 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:46:39 EDT
  • Another overflow exploit for Apache? *RESOLVED* Dayne Jordan 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 13:18:38 EDT
  • RE: Another overflow exploit for Apache? Timmothy Posey 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:21:36 EDT
  • RE: frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? James Tollerson 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:12:38 EDT
  • Re: Another overflow exploit for Apache? Bill Pennington 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 11:17:36 EDT
  • Re: Another overflow exploit for Apache? shimi 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 11:09:45 EDT
  • Re: UDP to port 500 wirepair 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 11:08:24 EDT
  • Re: UDP to port 500 Ralf G. R. Bergs 
• Wed Jul 02 2003 - 06:15:45 EDT
  • AW: DoS "Probing" on one of our hosts incidents(at)go-consult.net 
• Wed Jul 02 2003 - 17:10:38 EDT
  • msmsgs.exe /passportlogon /delaysync /shortpackets jay krous 
• Thu Jul 03 2003 - 09:07:04 EDT
  • UDP to port 500 Edmund Ronayne 
• Wed Jul 02 2003 - 14:08:25 EDT
  • Another overflow exploit for Apache? Dayne Jordan 
• Wed Jul 02 2003 - 13:08:43 EDT
  • frontpage extensions; backdoor or initial compromise? Jordan Wiens 
• Wed Jul 02 2003 - 03:10:56 EDT
  • Re: DoS "Probing" on one of our hosts Christopher Kunz 

  This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:02:18 EDT