[plug] bringing insert-OS-here to its knees

[Christian]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:29:38PM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
 
> > Do you have any links to further info about this vulnerability?
> 
> Not to hand, but they do exist. Just like the M$ claim that NT syscalls 
> were fully validated and so invulnerable to mistakes in syscall 
> paramaters: somebody actually tried it and got through some miserably 
> low average number of random syscalls before gutting NT each time.

I couldn't find anything about what you describe in the SecurityFocus
vulnerability database.  There were a couple of remote DoS problems with
Windows but there were patches for all of them.

> > Microsoft has been pretty good about releasing patches in recent times
> > so I'd be suprised if this problem exists and isn't fixed.  However,
> > your words "sooner or later it dies" makes it sound like Windows normal
> > behaviour and not really linked to any actual malicious attack... ;-)
> 
> I'd like to get all picky and point out the dichotomy between ``normal'' 
> meaning ``how it is intended to be'' and either ``typical'' or 
> ``common'' meaning ``how it actually is.'' (-:

I don't think "normal" ever means "how it is intended to be" although
people often like to misuse it that way.  It simply means that which is
the norm.