salamz
hi my new article on [shellcoding for linux/i386] is available
http://www.securitydocs.com/library/2615
AH
Masood Mehmood
http://www.phclub.org
Shellcoding for linux/i386
Shellcoding for linux/i386
--SP--
-
fahimzahid
- Cadet
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:39 pm
- Contact:
never reinvent the wheel?
Good programmers don't reinvent the wheel! they use metasploit.com
byez
byez
use mind baby!
Mr metasploit.com
there is a big diffrence between making and understanding. Good programmers need to have all this knowledge and take one thing i mention in my article.. read this
" No one knows about the nature of victim system and its security level and as my research tells me, IDS is the biggest enemy of shellcode. For example, you download a shell-exploit for XYZ service and that exploit contain string “/bin/sh” and the victims system takes all string and make it capital, so what you say your shell-exploit will work? No way. So what you do now, a part from waiting for another shell-exploit, which will cover this problem. That’s why learning shellcoding is important. Not only you can make changes to the existing shellcode but also you can study it for your personal knowledge."
u still think its reinvention? if yes then you are not independent. and read about IDS nature.
thnx
there is a big diffrence between making and understanding. Good programmers need to have all this knowledge and take one thing i mention in my article.. read this
" No one knows about the nature of victim system and its security level and as my research tells me, IDS is the biggest enemy of shellcode. For example, you download a shell-exploit for XYZ service and that exploit contain string “/bin/sh” and the victims system takes all string and make it capital, so what you say your shell-exploit will work? No way. So what you do now, a part from waiting for another shell-exploit, which will cover this problem. That’s why learning shellcoding is important. Not only you can make changes to the existing shellcode but also you can study it for your personal knowledge."
u still think its reinvention? if yes then you are not independent. and read about IDS nature.
thnx
--SP--
-
fahimzahid
- Cadet
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:39 pm
- Contact:
I guess the AlephOne's article in Phrack is enough for understanding how exploit works and I wonder why people just start repeating the same thing again and again! same thing but with different name .. isn't it plagiarism, yes i consider it to be! by the way what's new in this thingee that hasn't been taught before?
byez
byez
slamz!
first of all AlephOne's didnt invent these things because these stuff are common stuff for an expliots and secondly if you think its plagiarism so u better do. and third one about new thingy; before explaning IDS, explaning new thingy is useless for me, and as u can c i wrote version 1 with my article, for any reason i think.
ok bro if you still dont agree then add me on msn messenger, its more comfortable for me. It will b more fun wen u r counting new stuff on ur fingers.
first of all AlephOne's didnt invent these things because these stuff are common stuff for an expliots and secondly if you think its plagiarism so u better do. and third one about new thingy; before explaning IDS, explaning new thingy is useless for me, and as u can c i wrote version 1 with my article, for any reason i think.
ok bro if you still dont agree then add me on msn messenger, its more comfortable for me. It will b more fun wen u r counting new stuff on ur fingers.
--SP--
Hello,
Mr. fahimzahid,
If anyone is doing something for the good of others, why do you discourage him? He has explained how he didn't re-invent the wheel, so you should either give-up or disprove his argument. Simply repeating your objection in new words is not the way of having a healthy conversation/debate.
Moreover, re-inventing the wheel isn't ALWAYS a bad idea, especially to learn/research. Note the prefix 're' in the word research.
Mr. fahimzahid,
If anyone is doing something for the good of others, why do you discourage him? He has explained how he didn't re-invent the wheel, so you should either give-up or disprove his argument. Simply repeating your objection in new words is not the way of having a healthy conversation/debate.
Moreover, re-inventing the wheel isn't ALWAYS a bad idea, especially to learn/research. Note the prefix 're' in the word research.
"I think therefore I am" --- Rene Descartes