Now taking pull requests @ https://github.com/wreiske/shellshocker
I would say so yes. Have you tried the exploit cgi listed on the website to test?
This is an older, more vulnerable version of BASH. Our script provides 4.3 with fixes, not 3.2
Updated! Thanks for that.
That means that the server could of been vulnerable, but it didn't return that it was.
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…
Now taking pull requests @ https://github.com/wreiske/shellshocker
I would say so yes. Have you tried the exploit cgi listed on the website to test?
This is an older, more vulnerable version of BASH. Our script provides 4.3 with fixes, not 3.2
Updated! Thanks for that.
That means that the server could of been vulnerable, but it didn't return that it was.
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…