[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

* Ingo Molnar <> wrote:

> To understand the future direction of PaX, let's summarize what we
> achieve currently. The goal is to prevent/detect exploiting of
> software bugs that allow arbitrary read/write access to the attacked
> process. Exploiting such bugs gives the attacker three different
> levels of access into the life of the attacked process:
> (1) introduce/execute arbitrary code
> (2) execute existing code out of original program order
> (3) execute existing code in original program order with arbitrary
> data
> Non-executable pages (NOEXEC) and mmap/mprotect restrictions
> (MPROTECT) prevent (1) with one exception: if the attacker is able to
> create/write to a file on the target system then mmap() it into the
> attacked process then he will have effectively introduced and
> executed arbitrary code.
> [...]
> the blanket statement in this last paragraph is simply wrong, as it
> omits to mention a number of other ways in which "code" can be
> injected.

i'd like to correct this sentence of mine because it's unfair: your
categories are consistent if you define 'code' as 'machine code', and
it's clear from your documents that you mean 'machine code' under code.

(My other criticism remains.)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.073 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site