![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > I tried exec-shield-2.6.0-test6-G3 on 2.6.0-test7 patched with > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/cset-20031009_0504.txt.gz > (up to cset-1.1320), it patched with some fuzz and offset differences. i've uploaded a clean patch against 2.6.0-test7: redhat.com/~mingo/exec-shield/exec-shield-2.6.0-test7-G3 > I got the following exploit differences with libsafe and paxtest: > > libsafe-2.0-16: > [zozo@catv-50624ad9 exploits]$ ./t6 > This program tries to use scanf() to overflow the buffer. > If you get a /bin/sh prompt, then the exploit has worked. > Press any key to continue... > If you see this statement, it means that the buffer > overflow never occurred. > > Should I worry about it? i wouldnt worry about this too much - i think the exploit preparation code itself crashes sometimes (maybe due to randomization effects). I've seen it previously too. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||