Messages in this thread | | | From | "Sarah Addams" <> | Subject | Re: Linux Buffer Overflow Security Exploits | Date | Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:23:26 -0000 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Sarah Addams <s.addams@telergy.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Date: 03 March 1999 20:27 Subject: Re: Linux Buffer Overflow Security Exploits
>> Excuse my ignorance, but would someone explain to me why Linux and other = >> Unices are vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits? I suspect it's = >
>Because like basically all computers you don't have hardware type and >size tags on all pointers. There are approaches to reduce the probability >of that error but reading and checking code is the most productive. Logic >errors tend to be as big a problem
Isn't it the case for Intel 386 and up processors, as is true for other modern processors, that memory segments can be marked execute, read and/or write by a process running at a sufficiently high privilege level. So if you write your kernel to take advantage of these features, you could guard against the case where a buffer overflow is used to sneak code into an otherwise secure system?
I suppose my original question could be boiled down into:
Does a Linux (and/or other Unix) process inhabit a single read/write/execute memory segment?
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |