Messages in this thread | | | From | "Zachary Amsden" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:23:43 -0400 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: Peter T. Breuer <ptb@it.uc3m.es> To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds
>"A month of sundays ago Alan Cox wrote:" >> >> Actually a _lot_ of people run the non-excutable stack and related >> patches. They don't break anything, they stop a lot of the "I read >bugtraq > >As I remember, they broke gdb. > >I saw some other funny effects later and backed them out. > >Peter ptb@it.uc3m.es
Unless I am mistaken, Solar Designer fixed the gdb breakage, I believe his first version of the patch was too picky about data segments being executable.
However, several ways to defeat the patch and execute code through other means have been discussed on bugtraq, and it was generally concluded that any stack tricks pulled by the compiler or the OS will not be able to stop all classes of overflows. Nevertheless, non-exec stack on non-broken processors (i.e. not Intel) is a good idea.
I believe this is straying off-topic, any interested parties could continue conversation via private email.
Zachary Amsden amsden@andrew.cmu.edu
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |