<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Windows 7 Reintroduces Remote BSoD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joakimandersson.se/archives/2009/09/08/windows-7-reintroduces-remote-bsod/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joakimandersson.se/archives/2009/09/08/windows-7-reintroduces-remote-bsod/</link>
	<description>Passionate climber, brilliant coder</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:54:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joakim Andersson</title>
		<link>http://joakimandersson.se/archives/2009/09/08/windows-7-reintroduces-remote-bsod/comment-page-1/#comment-33516</link>
		<dc:creator>Joakim Andersson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joakimandersson.se/?p=2535#comment-33516</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It is indeed frightening how this can get through their testning. If you write new TCP/IP and SMB2 stacks I think it would be natural to set up unit tests that run all known old exploits against the new code.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Apparently they didn&#039;t do that!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is indeed frightening how this can get through their testning. If you write new TCP/IP and SMB2 stacks I think it would be natural to set up unit tests that run all known old exploits against the new code.</p>

<p>Apparently they didn&#8217;t do that!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel H</title>
		<link>http://joakimandersson.se/archives/2009/09/08/windows-7-reintroduces-remote-bsod/comment-page-1/#comment-33515</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joakimandersson.se/?p=2535#comment-33515</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I remember very very long ago sitting with backorifice of COTDC fame. I was more than surprised a simple exploit like this could make it past any modern Q&amp;A, let alone with newer stuff like fuzzying and unit testing instead of tedious manual testing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This hack is sadly even easier to use than teardrop. Since SMB2 travels subnets perfectly its much easier for a script-kiddie, disgruntled employee, virus or student to wreac havoc in a whole corporation at once.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Oh, it affects 2008 Server just as well, only demand is an SMB share wich pretty much covers it all.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember very very long ago sitting with backorifice of COTDC fame. I was more than surprised a simple exploit like this could make it past any modern Q&amp;A, let alone with newer stuff like fuzzying and unit testing instead of tedious manual testing.</p>

<p>This hack is sadly even easier to use than teardrop. Since SMB2 travels subnets perfectly its much easier for a script-kiddie, disgruntled employee, virus or student to wreac havoc in a whole corporation at once.</p>

<p>Oh, it affects 2008 Server just as well, only demand is an SMB share wich pretty much covers it all.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

