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

Message-ID: <20030814201525.GA21538@c9x.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:15:03 +0200
From: Jedi/Sector One <j@...eftpd.org>
To: Timo Sirainen <tss@....fi>
Subject: Re: Buffer overflow prevention

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@...Networks.Com>     -*\  __
 \ '/    <a href="http://www.PureFTPd.Org/"> Secure FTP Server </a>    \' /
  \/  <a href="http://www.Jedi.Claranet.Fr/"> Misc. free software </a>  \/