shellshocker

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   Now taking pull requests @ https://github.com/wreiske/shellshocker
2. 2.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   I would say so yes. Have you tried the exploit cgi listed on the website to test?
3. 3.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   This is an older, more vulnerable version of BASH. Our script provides 4.3 with fixes, not 3.2
4. 4.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   Updated! Thanks for that.
5. 5.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   That means that the server could of been vulnerable, but it didn't return that it was.
6. 6.▲
   by shellshocker 12y ago

   I'm taking all of your comments into consideration. I've made two updates already: Removed "This could mean that the server is not at all vulnerable" from the warning messages. Fixed the second exploit to be bash, not sh