BugTraq
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 05:26PM
Mariusz Woloszyn (emsi ipartners pl) (6 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 11:27PM
Shaun Clowes (shaun securereality com au) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 15 2003 06:48PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 17 2003 11:09PM
Shaun Clowes (shaun securereality com au) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 17 2003 10:42PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (2 replies)
Heterogeneity as a form of obscurity, and its usefulness Aug 21 2003 02:00AM
Bob Rogers (rogers-bt2 rgrjr dyndns org) (1 replies)
Re: Heterogeneity as a form of obscurity, and its usefulness Aug 22 2003 03:56AM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (1 replies)
Re: Heterogeneity as a form of obscurity, and its usefulness Aug 22 2003 06:21PM
Nicholas Weaver (nweaver CS berkeley edu)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 18 2003 06:07PM
Mark Handley (M Handley cs ucl ac uk) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 18 2003 08:11PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 07:37PM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org) (3 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 16 2003 01:14PM
sauron (unixlabs noos fr)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 09:14PM
Gerhard Strangar (gerhard brue net) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 09:43PM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 10:19PM
Gerhard Strangar (gerhard brue net)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 08:09PM
Matt D. Harris (vesper depraved org)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 07:17PM
Timo Sirainen (tss iki fi) (1 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 08:15PM
Jedi/Sector One (j pureftpd org) (1 replies)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:17:29PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> AFAIK all those combined do bring real security against generic exploits.

"Real security" is not the word.

PaX / Propolice / W^X / non-exec stacks don't solve bugs. What they do is
to _abort_ execution of a process when it behaves abnormally.

So instead of giving attackers the opportunity to run arbitrary code, you
only give them the ability to cause a denial of service.

This kind of protection should be coupled with tools that automatically
restart daemons when they crash (ex: daemontools and monit) to actually keep
the service running when under attack. Still, all of this is a couple of
unreliable band-aids.

--
__ /*- Frank DENIS (Jedi/Sector One) <j (at) 42-Networks (dot) Com [email concealed]> -*\ __
\ '/ <a href="http://www.PureFTPd.Org/"> Secure FTP Server </a> \' /
\/ <a href="http://www.Jedi.Claranet.Fr/"> Misc. free software </a> \/

[ reply ]
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 15 2003 09:54AM
Peter Busser (peter trusteddebian org)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 06:47PM
Jedi/Sector One (j pureftpd org) (2 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 15 2003 09:41AM
Peter Busser (peter trusteddebian org) (2 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 16 2003 01:36AM
Mark Tinberg (mtinberg securepipe com) (2 replies)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 18 2003 08:43PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 18 2003 08:41PM
Peter Busser (peter trusteddebian org)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 15 2003 05:55PM
stealth (stealth segfault net)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 08:24PM
Miod Vallat (miod online fr)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 06:27PM
Thomas Sjögren (thomas northernsecurity net)
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Buffer overflow prevention Aug 14 2003 04:51PM
KF (dotslash snosoft com)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus