bugtraq - Re: "Buffer overflow" term considered overloaded

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, 25 Sep 2006 02:46:34 +0100
From: "Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" <davek_throwaway@...mail.com>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject:  Re: "Buffer overflow" term considered overloaded

Steven M. Christey wrote:
> In "Re: IE ActiveX 0day?" to Bugtraq on September 18, Alexander
> Sotirov asked:
>
>> What is your definition of memory corruption? How can a buffer
>> overflow not be a memory corruption error?
>
> The term "buffer overflow" continues to be too general for the variety
> of issues out there.  Array index/offset errors, buffer "underflows,"
> out-of-bounds reads, frees of invalid pointers, length field
> inconsistencies, off-by-ones, insufficient memory allocation that is
> resultant from integer overflows, other kinds of incorrect size
> calculations, and other problems all involve memory access outside of
> expected boundaries, so they are called "buffer overflows."  But they
> are different than the "classic" overflows that strcpy() is known for.

  Indeed.  The distinction between "heap overflow" and "stack overflow" is 
far more information-bearing than the generic description "buffer overflow."

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....