Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Low Latency Patch | From | Vandoorselaere Yoann <> | Date | 03 Jul 2000 14:16:52 +0200 |
| |
Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> writes:
> On 3 Jul 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote:
[...]
> > yes, and non executable stack is really *not* a part of theses layer. > > Well, yes, it is. People trying to exploit things and causing core dumps > have clued me to buffer overflow exploits that I've missed and that would have > otherwise resulted in successful root exploits.
Non exec stack will not protect from that if it is designed to work on it ( and majority of exploits today are designed for that. )
[...]
> > Now you're suggesting that people involving in some threads on lkml > > are saying bullshit and do not know what they are talking about; > > i've not seen any piece of code from you nor kernel nor user space... > > i don't care, but if you think that what was said in such thread > > is bullshit : > > > Or you didn't read the good thread > > or you're simply an idiot. > > Now you've added "idiot" to "stupid" and "asshole". How mature and > sophisticated you are. A real kernel hacker no doubt. I guess if I'm ever > going to become a real kernel hacker I'll need to learn to start calling people > names too.
No, I'm not a kernel hacker, and far away of thinking i'm one...
Maybe i will be when i will get some free time to involve myself more in kernel development ( ie: when i'll be ending all my user space projects, and maybe when you'll stop wasting my time sending your 'getting nowhere' mail with me answering instead of coding ( note that i'm also too dumb to stop answering) ).
but, in contrast to you, i'm listening to what other people say and trust them... at least, if i do not understand, i ask.
But i do not start a thread getting nowhere basically saying:
"no, you're all wrong, you *must* include this patch, and ne stack are usefull".
In the technical discution i was pointing to you, there was ton of argument against using non executable stack...
> > > That's not the problem, > > non exec stack wasn't accepted because it give a false sence of security. > > Not one person that argued for it seemed to get any false sense of > security, nor do I.
you're really playing with people and trying maintain a flamebait, as a proof, i just found this lkml archive :
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566786875&CONTEXT=962629206.727122024&hitnum=0
dating of 31 Dec 1999 where someone is explaining you things about ne stack, and *also* explaining you that Linus *said* it was giving a False sense of security... ( and yes, he said it, but i can't find the involved thread ).
Now, please stop getting nowhere and take too people there time...
> If an application core dumps instead of gives root, that > isn't a clue to me that it's OK not to fix it because the non-executable stack > will handle it;
huh ? so you prefer buggy code instead of clean & bugfree one ?
> it's a clue that something needs fixing before the system was > root compromised. An alarm that I wouldn't have otherwise gotten. And it's > not a large patch as you seem to imply.
There is userspace & almost clean way to protect yourself from stack overflow attack. Theses was mentioned sooner in this thread.
-- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments.
- 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/
| |