Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:39:05 +0100 | From | Diego Calleja <> | Subject | Re: Sabotaged PaXtest (was: Re: Patch 4/6 randomize the stack pointer) |
| |
El Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:44:39 +0100 Peter Busser <busser@m-privacy.de> escribió:
> > which is clearly there to sabotage any segmentation based approach (eg > > execshield and openwall etc); it cannot have any other possible use or > > meaning. > > Ah, so you are saying that I sabotaged PaXtest? Sorry to burst your bubble, > but the PaXtest tests are no real attacks. They are *simulated* attacks. The > do_mprotect() is there to *simulate* behaviour people found in GLIBC under > certain circumstances. In other words: This is how certain applications > behave when run on exec-shield. They complained that PaXtest showed > inaccurate results on exec-shield. Since the purpose of PaXtest is to show > accurate results, the lack thereof has been fixed.
And people complains that nobody uses pax.... - 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/
| |