Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:49:10 -0400 (EDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds |
| |
ARGH! Solar's patch DOES NOT BREAK trampolines!!!!!! It catches the exception and decodes the code and detects the trampolines and lets it work. This does open up the window for some strange types of overflow attack but it makes it MUCH harder. I dont know of any cases where this tramp allow behavior can permit an overflow attack. The nostack patch fixes all known overflows and makes it much harder.
Stop spreading FUD. If I spread FUD It's one thing.. If you spread FUD it's quite another, you are VERY respected.
Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es> > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:01:49 +0200 (MET DST) > > "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. > > They also break the trampolines emmited naturally by gcc. > > Alan, this and for other reasons are why I think they should be > seperate patch sets, never in the mainline. > > Later, > David S. Miller > davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com > > - > 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 >
- 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
| |