On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 09:39 -0800, Roger Peña wrote: > --- Roger Peña <orkcu at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > As this bugtrack say "binaries from redhat" are not > > vulnerables but what happen to recompilations? > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200219 > > > > I understand that it is the compilation process what > > make this bug not exploitable and not the source > > code > > so, the question is: > > is the httpd binary from centos exploitable? > > > > > > I could not find any refence in the web about this > > topic. > > maybe I should ask in the centos-user mailling list > > but because it is a compilation thing ..... I guess > > centos developer are the right to anwser > > > sorry, I forgot to mention that I do test the > following "proof of concept" test: > > http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/443870/100/0/threaded > > and httpd-2.0.52-28.ent.centos4 give the "302 Found" > page so at least with that test I could not probe if > it is vulnerable or not > If it did do a "302 Found" ... then it is not vulnerable: from the article: "If your web server doesn't reply you with a '302 Found' page or a Segmentation Fault appears in your error_log, an apache child has crashed and your web server is vulnerable and exploitable." So a 302 found is good. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20070302/222dc49a/attachment-0005.sig>