Loading...
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Submitted By | Date |
|---|---|
| Comment | |
| 2015-12-27 03:19:02 | |
| say, another thought, there's a "Snort" rule that appears to alert if a Juniper Network backdoor password attempt was made. (https://gist.github.com/fox-srt/ca94b350f2a91bd8ed3f) does that mean that, with all these port 23 hits happening, that the Juniper backdoor could have been found years ago by pretty much anyone on the Internet who just monitored the actual packets they were being probed with? if any of them were actually such attempts. maybe they'd have to use it to do some scanning themselves to find what it was for though. does anyone do that? | |
| 2015-12-27 03:18:55 | |
| Gee, activity on this ssl port became really strong around the middle of 2012, and the Juniper Networks ssl backdoor showed up around the middle of 2012. Only nobody knew it then. How did that happen? | |
| CVE # | Description |
|---|---|
| CVE-2001-0797 | |
| CVE-2015-0014 | Buffer overflow in the Telnet service in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, and Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows Telnet Service Buffer Overflow Vulnerability." |
https://www.sans.edu
Questions? Feedback?
Use our contact form or
report bugs here
For interactive help and to chat with other users, try our Slack group.
Use our contact form or
report bugs here
For interactive help and to chat with other users, try our Slack group.
