bugtraq - Re: Buffer overflow prevention

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:01:51 +0200 (EEST)
From: Mariusz Woloszyn <emsi@...rtners.pl>
To: pageexec@...email.hu
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Buffer overflow prevention


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 pageexec@...email.hu wrote:

> > Anyways, on an i386 you can do W^X somewhat.  Not as perfectly as you
> > can on cpus that have a per-page X bit...
>
> You are wrong again, PaX provides perfect per-page non-executable pages
> using segmentation (SEGMEXEC), there are no restrictions on the ordering
> of data/code pages like in OpenBSD.
>
BTW: have anyone tried to talk wih Linus about implementing some PaX (or
even GR) functionality in official Kernels?
I know that the argument for not implementing Solar Designer's
nonexecutable stack patch in official kernel was that it is easily
bypassable, so what about PaX???

I hate seeing GOT and other segments rwx nowdays (while it's marked as r-x
it IS executable).

-- 
Mariusz Wołoszyn
Internet Security Specialist, GTS - Internet Partners