Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:47:48 -0500 (EST) | | From | linux kernel account <> | | Subject | Re: 3.0 wishlist Was: Overview of 2.2.x goals? |
| |
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 ak@muc.de wrote: > It has side effects. It needs an ugly special case to detect legitimate > uses of stack code (e.g. gcc trampolines), which may fail with more > obscure compilers or interpreters that do this. My point actually was > only that the security improvement of this change is not as high as many > think.
It doesn't have side effects if it's turned off.. :)
> > > This is an imperfect world, and rejecting something because it isn't > > perfect doesn't help. It won't *force* applications to be more > > careful, which is what some may hope for. > > That is irrelevant, because it needs only a slight adaption by the > exploit writers.
Absoulty Untrue. I offered cash, a few said they'd try. I got no responce.. If it were that easy.. :)
A 'slight adaption' isn't always possible when you are trying to overflow a buffer..
> > > > "The point of locks on your house is not to stop burglars, but to make > > it harder for them so that they try the next house down the street". > > "Using antibiotica carelessly harms more in the long run, because the > bacteria becomes immune, so it won't work when you really need it" > (OK, not 100% accurate) > Actually, 100% unrelated. > -A. >
|  |