I want to mention that the claim about EEYE is my own logical conclusion. I don't know if it's true or not. I based my opinion on my own experience dealing with the OpenSSL and MS ASN.1 vulnerabilities. I ended up writing my own X509 editor/decoder and SSL client when I was researching the OpenSSL vulnerabilities. When EEYE announced their MS ASN.1 discoveries I simply used what I already had... only on IIS (with some minor configuration changes). It seems logical to assume that they came across those MS vulnerabilities because of OpenSSL. For example, if you compare the first OpenSSL vulnerability to the MS ASN.1 Library Length Overflow Heap Corruption you'll see that they are too similar to be a simple coincidence... -----Original Message----- From: kquest@toplayer.com [mailto:kquest@toplayer.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:03 AM To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com Subject: bid: 9660 : Microsoft IIS Unspecified Remote Denial Of Service Vu lnerability This is not an unspecified remote DoS. This is related to the vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE. The reason the exploit caused a DoS is because the OpenSSL vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities discovered by EEYE overlap. They both have a length integer overflow. I actually believe that EEYE discovered their vulnerabilities right after the OpenSSL vulnerabilities came out. They ran their PoC code against IIS and discovered a DoS (just like this bid reports). Then they dug a bit deeper and now we have those multiple MS ASN.1 vulnerabilities that everybody is talking about. It was pretty much a no brainer for them. Kyle
