|
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 14 2003 07:37PM Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org) (3 replies) 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 07:17PM Timo Sirainen (tss iki fi) (1 replies) 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) |
|
Privacy Statement |
Hi,
> The only way to sleep quietly in fact is to feed your computer to a shredder.
Yes, indeed. But if you install PaX and all the other nice and really
usefull things out there I think you can sleep pretty well. I mean
all the bypassing for the really hard stuff (PaX, gr, SELinux)
is really theoretical from what I have seen. I really want to see
that guy (or girl? :) that exploits a GR'ed box remotely where the
target box runs single-service and well audited code. You do not
have to fear that person that gets into it, and you will probably never know
(s)he was there, so who cares?
Not speaking about user-shells, trojans on client-systems and social engenering
here.
> contains millions of lines of code. Auditing this amount of code is simply
> impossible. Furthermore, auditors are humans. Humans make mistakes, not only
> when they are programmers, but also when they are auditors. So audited code
> will still contain security bugs.
>
> In fact, the amount of security in OpenBSD is only slightly less horrible than
> that of most *NIX operating systems (which includes Adamantix for that matter).
>
> Groetjes,
> Peter Busser
> --
> The Adamantix Project
> Taking trustworthy software out of the labs, and into the real world
> http://www.adamantix.org/
[ reply ]