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  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]
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:22:08 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Arthur Corliss <corliss@...italmages.com>
To: Ken Kousky <kkousky@...inc.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: VMWare poor guest isolation design

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Kousky wrote:

> I'm trying to understand how the vm actually prevents the buffer overflow
> from injecting code that has direct hardware control? It seems that the code
> injected into memory should be truly "arbitrary code" based on the physical
> machine.

First off, you need to understand what a buffer overflow is -- in most cases
it's not an attack on the hardware, it's an attack on the process.  Which is
usually running in its own protected address space.

In short, vms don't alleviate or protect you from buffer overflows (crap
code is still crap inside of a guest), but running a service in a dedicated
vm versus on a host with other concurrent services reduces the information
leakage should the service be subverted.  That's all.

 	--Arthur Corliss
 	  Live Free or Die

Powered by blists - more mailing lists