full-disclosure - Talk in #grsecurity

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: <200403262344.i2QNibPV027611@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Talk in #grsecurity 

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:10:02 +0100, Henk Stubbe <henk@...ejezus.nl>  said:

> Spender sent me the alleged exploit for exec-shield... and it bypasses the
> protections offered by exec-shield completely without the need for brute
> forcing.

Does it actually bypass a protection that exec-shield claims to give, or
is it doing something that exec-shield doesn't claim to be able to stop?

There's no love lost between the pax and exec-shield crews:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107209069402935&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107209256604442&w=2

So I'd evaluate very carefully any claim made by either crew.  It's possible
that there is a real hole in exec-shield.  It's also possible that the
"exploit" is simply doing stuff that exec-shield won't stop by design -
remember that a design *goal* of exec-shield was to not be as kernel-intrusive
as pax, so it would have a smaller footprint and be less likely to break stuff
unintentionally.

-------------- 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/20040326/76b45324/attachment.bin