new Bind exploit?

[Jeff Macdonald]

I wonder if the patched BINDs are causing this.....

On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 14:49, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 13:07, bscott at ntisys.com wrote:
> >   What about the first octet?  (Which is the top-most (right-most) octet for
> > reverse DNS lookups.)  Any pattern there?  That's what matters for DNS
> > delegation.
> 
> 
> $ grep lame hmmm | perl -n -e '($arpa)=/\((in [^?]+)/; print $arpa,
> "\n";' | cut -d' ' -f2 | sort | uniq -c | sort -k1 -r -n
>     484 '214.in-addr.arpa'
>     476 '215.in-addr.arpa'
>     300 '0.206.in-addr.arpa'
>     287 '8.in-addr.arpa'
>     268 '0.0.210.in-addr.arpa'
>     140 '0.0.195.in-addr.arpa'
>      28 '0.66.in-addr.arpa'
>       2 '234.in-addr.arpa'
> 
> I don't see a pattern.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss