BugTraq
http://www.smashguard.org Jan 30 2004 11:34PM
Hilmi Ozdoganoglu (cyprian purdue edu) (2 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 04 2004 05:26AM
Leon Harris (leon quoll com) (1 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 05 2004 06:06PM
Seth Arnold (sarnold wirex com)
RE: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 03 2004 12:36PM
Dave Paris (dparis w3works com) (2 replies)
RE: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 06 2004 08:29PM
Hilmi Ozdoganoglu (cyprian purdue edu) (3 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 07 2004 11:44PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (2 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Apr 29 2004 09:55PM
Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz) (3 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org May 01 2004 01:56AM
Coleman Kane (cokane cokane org)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org May 01 2004 12:45AM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Apr 29 2004 11:24PM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (2 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org May 01 2004 12:28AM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Apr 29 2004 11:29PM
Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz) (1 replies)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org May 01 2004 02:12AM
Nicholas Weaver (nweaver CS berkeley edu)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 10 2004 12:04AM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org)
> As Theo said, the AMD buffer overflow "protection" is nothing more than
> sensible separation of R and X bits per page, fixing a glaring and
> anomalous defect in the original 386 MMU. Many CPUs before and since had
> this feature, and it was just Intel slop in the early 1980s that
> developed an MMU (and associated instruction set) that mistakenly
> treated R and X per page as one bit.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

At the same time that AMD is per-page X bit support to the x86
architecture, Intel is removing such capability from ARM cpus. And of
course mips cpus cannot do it. And it will be ages before x86
compatible cpus like the NSC Geode and such will have it.

So pretty much any low-power embedded device you can buy in the future
will not have such basic and simple protection.

Per-page execute permission functionality in a modern split-TLB CPU is
about 80 gates. On a non-split TLB it adds perhaps 80 gates + 20-per
line.

[ reply ]
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 07 2004 06:11PM
Nicholas Weaver (nweaver CS berkeley edu)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 07 2004 03:27PM
Theo de Raadt (deraadt cvs openbsd org) (1 replies)
Re[2]: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 07 2004 08:58PM
Andrey Kolishak (andr sandy ru)
Re: http://www.smashguard.org Feb 03 2004 07:01PM
Nicholas Weaver (nweaver CS berkeley edu)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus