Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

AOL Instant Messenger Remote Hole

Posted by michael on Wed Jan 02, 2002 03:26 PM
from the makes-remote-administration-easier dept.
The DSL Guy writes: "The non-profit security team w00w00.org started off 2002 by uncovering a serious flaw in AOL's Instant Messenger protocol. With over 100 million people registered on the AIM service, this vulnerability poses a serious security risk for Internet users worldwide. This flaw can enable remote users to execute code on any machine logged into the AOL IM service. "So easy to hack, no wonder it's number one!" Details can be found at the w00w00 site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
AOL Instant Messenger Remote Hole | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 343 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Ouch... by Marx_Mrvelous (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:29PM
    • Re:Ouch... by madenosine (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:32PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Ouch... by Hiro Antagonist (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:33PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Ouch... by Eagle7 (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:34PM
    • Re:Ouch... by mshiltonj (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:36PM
    • Re:Ouch... by Marx_Mrvelous (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:40PM
      • Re:Ouch... by efgbr (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @08:03PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • How to protect yourself (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mwongozi (176765) <slashthree AT davidglover DOT org> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:30PM (#2775186) Homepage
    For those who didn't bother to read the article:

    We recommend Robbie Saunder's AIM Filter (http://www.ssnbc.com/wiz [ssnbc.com]) to protect yourselves. A temporary solution is to go into your Preferences and in the Privacy section click "Allow Only Users on My Buddy List" under "Who can contact me."

  • You have mail! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Monte (48723) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:30PM (#2775190)
    ...and now everyone has your mail!
  • Why not wait a day? by MarkLR (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:31PM
    • Re:Why not wait a day? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Monte (48723) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:33PM (#2775213)
      Given that the message states AOL will do a server side fix in a day, why not wait ONE DAY before releasing the exploit details.

      Perhaps the former was a result of the latter? There's a concept called "lighting a fire under their ass".
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Why not wait a day? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ez76 (322080) <slashdot@e 7 6 . us> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:04PM (#2775411) Homepage
        Perhaps the former was a result of the latter? There's a concept called "lighting a fire under their ass".
        Can someone please explain to me the moral or ethical mandate that supports/justifies this sort of vigilante thinking? Consider the following off-line scenarios, which to me seem equivalent (someone correct my thinking):
        • A test mode is discovered in a popular residential/commercial building security system whereby anyone can enter such a building by punching in a certain 23-digit code into the alarm keypad. w00w00 drives around town and posts a picture of the affected keypads and the first 21 digits of the code.
        • Certain model year GM vehicles' security systems can be foiled by holding down multiple chiclet keys at once and inserting a metal object into the driver's side door keyhole. w00w00 cruises local mall parking lots, opening the doors of random vehicles, putting a bulletin about the problem on the driver's seat, closing the door, and fleeing.
        • A template and generating function for test AT&T calling card numbers is discovered that permits anyone with the two to make free calls. w00w00 publishes the information.


        All of these actions could have theoretically been done in the name of improving security but in the short-term all they do is recklessly endanger it.

        These actions wouldn't fly in the real world without legal repercussions. And how can you claim that they are done in the interest of the public when so much anonymous public damage could result in the short-term? Is there anyone out there who really believes this isn't being done to take a stab at big corporations for big corporations' sake, by individuals who thrive in the gray area of the law?

        There is at least one long-term upside to w00w00's actions, though. Their actions will hasten the approval of legislation which makes online reckless endangerment as criminal on the Internet as it is in your neighborhood.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Why not wait a day? by nolife (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @11:58AM
    • Re:Why not wait a day? by GTRacer (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:36PM
      • Re:Why not wait a day? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GTRacer (234395) <gtracer308 AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:09PM (#2775444) Homepage Journal
        Actually, I don't hate Microsoft products, just their practices and abhorrent licensing shenanigans. In fact, I use WinNT, Outlook, IE 5.5 and the rest of the Office 97 suite alongside Gimp, Apache, Perl, NMap, and WGet.

        I am not an OSS zealot although I do dual-boot Mandrake.

        I hate AOL because of their incredibly asinine advertising! "Everyone I know is on my Buddy List!" Maybe it's time for more friends! I used AOL 3, 4 and 5 at work and at home and despised the branding tricks and limitations on the Internet experience.

        I also loathe the way it seems (my perception - may not reflect reality) they feel their users need a prepackaged community because they're simpletons who don't need a better, deeper Internet experience. Kinda reminds me of various SF dystopias where the general populace is kept just smart enough to be useful but not enough to be critical thinkers and therefore dangerous to the status quo.

        GTRacer
        - Equal-opportunity company basher!

        [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Why not wait a day? by larsu (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:06PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Info on AIM protocol (Score:3, Informative)

    by btellier (126120) <btellier@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:31PM (#2775195)
    Since we all know the holes won't stop here, anyone who wishes to further investigate problems can start their research here [aol-files.com] and here [aol-files.com].
    • Re:Info on AIM protocol (Score:4, Informative)

      by ichimunki (194887) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:57PM (#2775371)
      Well, you can research the protocol all you want, but it is the client application that is the problem here. Now maybe the protocol makes security an issue when used correctly, but still it is up to the client developer to introduce the feature in a non-safe way.
      [ Parent ]
  • not any machine (Score:5, Informative)

    by hyperstation (185147) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:31PM (#2775196)
    ...only windows machines. get your facts straight.

    This does not affect the
    non-Windows versions, because the non-Windows versions currently do
    not yet support the feature that this vulnerability occurs in.
  • Warnings by Joe U (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:31PM
    • Re:Warnings (Score:4, Funny)

      by Havokmon (89874) <<moc.nomkovah> <ta> <kcir>> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:49PM (#2775320) Homepage Journal
      One of ICQ's was a login buffer overflow. Basically if you used licq or a NON-Mirabilis version, you could login as anyone just by using a password longer than 15 chars (IIRC).

      Ok so I used it once to send two of my coworkers homo "I like to watch your ass" emails from each other...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Warnings by kesuki (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:03PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Most of the writeup bashes the DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bonker (243350) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:32PM (#2775209)
    The guy spends most of his time bashing the DMCA and how hard it makes to offer patches to this sort of thing without AOL's permission:

    From the NTBugtraq letter:
    First, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act affects circumvention of anti-piracy mechanisms and reverse engineering. If a product is released in binary form only (i.e., AOL) to protect its technologies and one attempts to reverse engineer the file, it's a violation of the DMCA. It's no question who the lobbyists behind this law were: the big corporations. Not surprisingly, AOL Time Warner was one of the DMCA's biggest supporters. Find out more information about the DMCA at http://www.anti-dmca.org.
  • Ok... by Wind_Walker (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:33PM
    • Don't shoot the messenger, man by mblase (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:37PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Ok... by I_redwolf (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:41PM
    • retard... by Wakko Warner (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:53PM
    • Re:Ok... by neema (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:13PM
    • Re:Ok... by Noodleroni (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @09:56PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Better Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by XBL (305578) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:33PM (#2775218)
    http://www.w00w00.org/advisories/aim.html [w00w00.org] is a better link.

    Hey, if you guys want open-source IM, check out http://www.jabber.org [jabber.org] The server is open-source and it's a distributed XML-based network. Lots of different, cool clients too. JabberIM for Windows, and Gabber for Linux are the most mature ones though. There are bridges to the AIM and ICQ networks available on some servers, but the ones on Jabber.org have been blocked by AOL... nice huh?
    • Re:Better Link by Malc (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:42PM
      • Re:Better Link by CoJoNEs (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:49PM
      • Re:Better Link by bman08 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:50PM
      • Re:Better Link (Score:5, Interesting)

        by XBL (305578) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:57PM (#2775369)
        I think the MSN and Yahoo transports on the Jabber.org server has been working reliably for some time.

        For ICQ and AIM, you can probably find some lesser-used Jabber servers with the transports active, and not blocked. JabberView.com has a small list of other servers.

        Me, I just use my Jabber.org account, but cross-link to transports on other servers that actually work.

        Of course, you can run your own server and transports. Heck, you could even do it on your own box if you want to. Just run icq.localhost and aim.localhost along with jabberd localhost, but still use your user@jabber.org or whatever as your main Jabber account. It's easy to do.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Better Link by ASCIIMan (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:58PM
        • Re:Better Link by xtremex (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:15PM
        • Re:Better Link by PoiBoy (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:20PM
          • Re:Better Link by SonCorn (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:59PM
          • Re:Better Link by nyquil (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @10:17PM
        • Re:Better Link by Malc (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:35PM
          • Re:Better Link by zaffir (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:12PM
          • Re:Better Link by kesuki (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:29PM
          • Re:Better Link by snake_dad (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:36PM
        • Re:Better Link by berzerke (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:02PM
        • Re:Better Link by snake_dad (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:32PM
    • Re:Better Link by cetan (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:55PM
    • Trillian by davmct (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:31PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Server-side fix? by cscx (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:34PM
  • Yet another reason (Score:3, Troll)

    by the_rev_matt (239420) <slashbot@th[ ]ymous.com ['eon' in gap]> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:35PM (#2775227) Homepage
    I stopped using ICQ years ago because it was so script-kiddie friendly and AIM not long after. I'm quite happy using Jabber [jabber.org] with a gateway to Yahoo Messenger, thankyouverymuch.
  • Abstract Error (Score:5, Informative)

    by strider( corinth ) (246023) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:35PM (#2775229) Homepage
    The abstract for the article is in error: it reads, "The non-profit security team w00w00.org started off 2002 by uncovering a serious flaw in AOL's Instant Messenger protocol... This flaw can enable remote users to execute code on any machine logged into the AOL IM service.". The flaw isn't in the protocol itself but in the client, and therefore doesn't actually affect "any machine logged into the AOL IM service". It sounds like AOL is going to prevent the sending of exploit packets at the server level to avoid requesting all of their Windows users to upgrade, but those of us using Linux or another OS should be fine regardless.
  • AIM will always be a problem (Score:3, Informative)

    by I_redwolf (51890) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:36PM (#2775239) Homepage Journal
    ALWAYS, if the protocol isn't openly documented and severely tested over a communications line for security it is insecure.

    I recommend the majority of people I deal with use jabber (this is not some plug for jabber; it's just at the end of the day, it's more secure and yet accomplishes the same goal AIM etc etc have)

    If you are using AIM, do yourself a favor a pickup a jabber client, you won't be sorry.
  • by A_Non_Moose (413034) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:37PM (#2775244) Homepage Journal
    How about the "you got mail" dude do one that says "j00 g0t 0wN3D"!

    One of Many Instant Messenger Exploits (MIME for short), I'm sure.

    {if you are going to assinate a Mime, would you use a silencer?}
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by noc (97855) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:37PM (#2775247)
    The non-profit security team w00w00.org started off 2002 by uncovering a serious flaw in AOL's Instant Messenger protocol.

    The problem is in the implementation, not in the protocol. If it were in the protocol, that would make all clients at risk. As it is, only the official Windows client is vulnerable, because it implements game requests without checking for buffer overflow. I really don't understand why people still write code this way -- buffer overflows are so easy to prevent.

    Somewhat (but only somewhat) offtopic: why on earth doesn't ./ at leas browse through the links they post? It's not like they don't have the manpower. If they'd even looked at the article, they'd have caught this...

  • Hole? by neoevans (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:40PM
    • Re:Hole? by cscx (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:49PM
      • Re:Hole? by neoevans (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:59PM
        • Re:Hole? by gaudior (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:05PM
        • Re:Hole? by Tom7 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:27PM
          • Re:Hole? by neoevans (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:39PM
        • Re:Hole? by neoevans (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:47PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Code Red. by saint10 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:44PM
    • Re:Code Red. by damiam (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:01PM
      • Re:Code Red. by Hatechall (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:52PM
        • Re:Code Red. by damiam (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:29PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Code Red. by Pakaran2 (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:55AM
  • It couldn't be... (Score:4, Funny)

    by iiii (541004) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:45PM (#2775296) Homepage
    It couldn't be, because
    AOL is deeply committed to your security. We use state-of-the-art technology to keep your personal information as secure as possible. We also have put in place privacy protection control systems designed to ensure that the personal data you share with AOL is safe and private. In addition, AOL keeps your password strictly confidential, and all authentication for the Service is performed on AOL's secure servers. Sites participating in the Service may not collect or store AOL password information.

    From this site. [aol.com]

  • Lesser of two evils. by eAndroid (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:47PM
  • Trillian (Score:5, Informative)

    by svwolfpack (411870) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:48PM (#2775315) Homepage
    I've recently started using trillian (www.trillian.cc [trillian.cc]) for all my IMing needs... (yes, it does connect to the AIM server, among others such as MSN messenger, yahoo, and ICQ) I'm assuming it probably doesn't have this flaw, which is obviously a nice feature. And as far as I know, it's the only really solid alternative to a) having a billion separate IM programs b) using hated AOL software.
    • Thanks by Uttles (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:57PM
    • Re:Trillian by m3000 (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:05PM
    • Re:Trillian by Luminous (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:18PM
    • Re:Trillian (Score:5, Informative)

      by Daniel (1678) <dburrows@@@debian...org> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:26PM (#2775528)
      Well, there's always Everybuddy [everybuddy.com], which I used for a while. I never used the non-AIM services much though, so these days I've reverted to Gaim [sourceforge.net]. It has support for ICQ and other protocols (MSN, Jabber, IRC, Zephyr, ..?), but I've never tried it myself.

      Daniel
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Trillian by malevolence (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:27PM
    • What of Jabber? by Second_Derivative (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:39PM
    • Trillian WORKS under Wine! by yerricde (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:53PM
    • Re:Trillian by infiniti99 (Score:3) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:57PM
      • Re:Trillian by Lemmy Caution (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:04PM
      • Re:Trillian (Score:4, Informative)

        by Quarters (18322) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:33PM (#2776255)
        Jabber is great except for four very pesky problems:

        1) You have to connect to a Jabber server
        2) You have to find a Jabber server that is running all of the message protocols you want/need
        3) Most servers are run by regular people, and they're not always on when you want/need them.
        4) Your buddy list is stored server side, so you can not easily move to another server. If your sever goes down you'll have to recreate your entire buddly list on a new server if you want access.

        Trillian, on the other hand, connects to the chat providers native servers and uses XML as a translation mechanism on the client side. The chances of Yahoo's chat server, AOL's chat server, ICQ's servers, or MSN's chat servers going down is very very slim. I used to use Jabber but gave up in frustration when the server I used disappeared for over a week.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Trillian by WWWWolf (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @04:23AM
          • Re:Trillian by Quarters (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:10AM
      • Re:Trillian by jerk (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:30PM
    • Re:Trillian by Howie (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:03PM
    • Re:Trillian by gadwale (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:00PM
    • encryption by Cardhore (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @09:18PM
      • Re:encryption by mblumber (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:55AM
        • Re:encryption by Cardhore (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @11:13PM
    • Re:Trillian by BrookHarty (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @10:03PM
    • Re:File transfers with Trillian by Krilomir (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @01:07PM
  • Microsoft is number one again! by Uttles (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:49PM
  • Gaim and TOC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Saint Nobody (21391) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:52PM (#2775336) Homepage Journal

    well, here's yet another reason to be using TOC (as opposed to Oscar, the newer of the two AIM protocols.) TOC is/was an open protocol, and i've had very little problem with it. admittedly, it doesn't have all the "features" that Oscar has, but if all you want is chat, and you don't care a whole lot about file transfers, et al. TOC is more than sufficient. plus, unlike Oscar, AOL doesn't seem to arbitrarily change the protocol. And it seems to be more stable, server-side. I've had countless instances of hearing the dispaired cries of "AIM is down" from throughout my dorm without having a problem. TOC goes down occasionally, but not nearly as much, from my experience.

    as for clients, i recommend Gaim for Linux. You can select the TOC protocol in the Account Editor window.

    <asbestos>yes, i know there's a million things that Oscar can do that TOC can't. but I don't care. TOC just works better from my experience, especially when clients have to release new versions to work around AOL changing the Oscar protocol slightly in order to screw over MS.</asbestos>

  • Wow... by billmaly (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:55PM
  • Heh... first hack... (Score:4, Funny)

    by tcc (140386) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:55PM (#2775361) Homepage Journal
    Change that annoying incomming Email .wav file...

    "You've got nailed"
  • Best PR Spin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VivianC (206472) <internet_update@ ... oo.com minus bsd> on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:00PM (#2775387) Homepage Journal
    This has got the best PR response I've ever seen to one of these holes:

    From the Washington Post Story [washingtonpost.com]

    A security hole in AOL Time Warner's Instant Messenger program used by millions of users worldwide can let a hacker take full control of a victim's computer, according to security researchers and the company.

    An AOL spokesman said the problem will be fixed soon, and users won't have to download anything.


    Great idea! Why make the user download and test a patch? We can just use this hole that gives us full control of a vitim's computer...
  • Could someone please explain to me? by TheOnlyCoolTim (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:03PM
  • direct connect by 2MuchC0ffeeMan (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:09PM
  • w00w00? (Score:4, Funny)

    by fobbman (131816) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:16PM (#2775480) Homepage
    "The non-profit security team w00w00.org..."

    Oh, so the 1337 are going the non-profit route? Nice to see that they are going somewhat legit here, but are we going to see mass-defacement support drives once a month looking for donations, a la PBS? Are they going to only release their best exploits during these fund drives? And how much do I have to donate to get reach the benefactor level where I get the "Bill Gates unrestricted Amex card" number as a gift of thanks?

    More importantly, did Microsoft "give generously" during the "Here's how to hack AIM" episode of "Sesame Street"?

    "Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the letters M, S, N, and the number 1."

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • This could be a learning experience... by cscx (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:17PM
  • In Perspective by nailchipper (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:18PM
  • Only AIM versions > 4.7.2480 by Evro (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:28PM
  • Check out this quote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VValdo (10446) on Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:39PM (#2775614)
    from USAToday [usatoday.com]:

    Russ Cooper, who moderates a popular security mailing list and works for security firm TruSecure, said Conover's actions are irresponsible. "I think it's better to provide details of the exploit and then let other people write the actual code," Cooper said. "Unfortunately, these are fundamentally naive people with a very childish view of the world."

    Hmm. Anyone else sense a little hostility from the for-profit [trusecure.com] security industry...?

  • Bug in Protocol??? by sterno (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:41PM
  • Another Workaround by base2op (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:46PM
  • Might Try Odigo by Razzious (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @04:59PM
  • More info by hether (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:09PM
  • AIM just rebooted. by joe630 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:11PM
  • Server Side Patch doesnt fix.. by Thomas Charron (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:12PM
  • AIM offline by elohim (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:12PM
  • i've an idea! by waschebaer (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:28PM
  • Trillian not affected by OnyxRaven (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @05:46PM
  • Irresponsible! by Ichoran (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:06PM
  • Nice hack! Works too by georgevulov (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:07PM
  • Watch out for incoming Script Kiddie onslaught by Lally Singh (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:10PM
  • Aim Filter by Pludodog (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @06:21PM
  • Fire for Mac OS X is great by gsfprez (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:02PM
  • AIM exploit fixed by Townshend (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:17PM
  • MIRANDA by Luminair (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:41PM
  • Other AIM clients by 90XDoubleSide (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @07:54PM
  • The register by Stone Rhino (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @08:36PM
  • Don't call it a security flaw by btempleton (Score:2) Wednesday January 02 2002, @08:38PM
  • Wow. these w00w00 guys are TRUE HAX0RZ! by pipeb0mb (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @08:44PM
  • Random thoughts by het3 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @08:45PM
  • how do i turn it off? by redpop350 (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @10:35PM
  • Perfect Reason to use Open Source by DarkProphet (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @11:00PM
  • Consider the coverage on MSNBC by disenfranchised (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @12:41AM
  • its never going to end unless ... by jopet (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @08:50AM
  • Re:It is good that this bug was discovered... by Smooph (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @03:54PM
  • Re:The w00w00 folks... by newbob (Score:1) Wednesday January 02 2002, @10:37PM
  • Re:Anything AOL is like The Teletubbies... by Stackis (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:47AM
  • This just in... by QuadGoatBoy (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @11:25AM
  • Re:The w00w00 folks... by QuadGoatBoy (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @12:32PM
  • 22 replies beneath your current threshold.