ep's blog

Vulnerability in Internet Explorer Could Allow Information Disclosure


Thanks to Chris for the tip.

Microsoft is reporting a new vulnerability in IE that could lead to
information disclosure of files with known filenames to a remote attacker.

"[If] a user is using a version of Internet Explorer that is not running
in Protected Mode an attacker may be able to access files with an
already known filename and location."

What should I do about illegal activity in an email?

Sometimes you might receive a fraudulent email asking you for personal information that could be used for illegal activities.  A lot of people just delete the email and move on.  But, what if you want to notify someone?  What if the scam is very convincing and you want someone to look into it?

Here are some tips on what to do in this situation.

GNU Gzip Dynamic Huffman Decompression Remote Code Execution Vulnerability


A vulnerability in Gzip could lead to remote code execution. This is
especially critical for services that automatically gunzip files as part
of vulnerability scanning.

Multiple OS versions are affected.

It is recommended that the latest available version of gzip be applied
to systems which use Gzip.


Microsoft Internet Explorer (CVE-2010-0247) Uninitialized Memory Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (IE5 and IE6)


This remote code execution vulnerability only affects IE5 and IE6.
Please see the link above for more information.

It is recommended that users of IE5 or IE6 patch to the latest version,
upgrade to IE8 or use an alternative browser to mitigate this risk.


UPDATED VMSA-2009-0016.2 VMware vCenter and ESX update release and vMA patch release address multiple security issues in third p


In addition to [NET #1667] VMSA-2010-0002, VMware announced an update to
VMSA-2009-0016.2. This announcement covers 93 CVE vulnerabilities (31
duplicated from VMSA-2010-0002).

Affected Products:

The How and Why of User Private Groups in Unix

The first time I heard about User Private Groups (UPG) is when I was installing one of my first Red Hat Linux systems when I was in college.  As a seasoned Solaris administrator, I thought it was very odd that Red Hat didn't put my users into a default group of staff.  And then they wanted to change my umask from 022 to 002?  What the heck, that doesn't sound secure?