bugtraq - Re: http://www.smashguard.org

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: <20040429232921.GD8232@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:29:21 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...unix.com>
Cc: Hilmi Ozdoganoglu <cyprian@...due.edu>,
	Dave Paris <dparis@...orks.com>, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: http://www.smashguard.org


Hi!

> >>>Computer World, January 15, 2004).
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>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 
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Actually it is not "sensible", and it is not separation.
> >
> >You can have r--, r-x, but you can't have --x.
> > 
> >
> But that is *exactly* what is meant by "separation" of R and X.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by it not being "sensible". Most every CPU 
> I have ever seen does this except the x86. Someone apparently thought 
> there was no value in separate R and X bits for the i386 back in the 
> mid-80s. It was a false economy :)

Well.. they are not really separate bits.

If they was, you'd have ---, --x, r--, r-x. You can't have --x
combination (which is sad for the emulators).

I believe that on most sane architectures (m68k at least), you can
have all 4 combinations.

							Pavel
-- 
934a471f20d6580d5aad759bf0d97ddc