| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200308201307.h7KD78g8000384@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Re: Buffer overflow prevention On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:31:24 +0200, Peter Busser <peter@...steddebian.org> said: > And another is that performance is more important than security in the Linux > world. Even though most servers and desktops are more than 90% idle and CPU > cycles have never been so cheap. Still, it seems that none of this wealth > should be spent to improve security somewhat. I'd like to know where you get the funding to have all your servers at 90% idle. Most of us have servers where 90% busy is the normal condition. Other than that, Peter is pretty much on target - although I'm not sure if the RedHat issue with "NIH" patches is really that, or a question of intrusive code in the kernel (I'd have to look at both patches - the RedHat one was pretty intrusive, but looked like low-overhead at run time once the gcc and ld hooks were incorporated to handle auto-flagging of trampolines...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030820/bf19bf75/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists