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: <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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists