Ben Reser wrote:
Even with an insignificant performance problem (which is debatable).
It would have little purpose. As an admin a tool like this wouldn't
give me better sleep. As I've pointed out before there have been ways
found around such tools. The only better sleep I get is by
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:15:23AM +0200, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Well, and if the patch doesn't exists yet? And furthermore I repeat,
in most cases there aren't ANY sysadmin who worries about upgrades.
It exists it just hasn't been kept up to date with the current gcc...
Which I have to wonder
[snip : Stackguard fart]
This should be taken up with the ISO C standardization committee so
that boundary checking becomes an optional language feature (giving
us a well thought out choice) instead of forcing a stopgap measure on
everybody...
[snip : to the point security reply by Ben]
why not
Ben Reser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:15:23AM +0200, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Well, and if the patch doesn't exists yet? And furthermore I repeat,
in most cases there aren't ANY sysadmin who worries about upgrades.
It exists it just hasn't been kept up to date with the
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:19:48PM +0200, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Which patch are you talking for? I wasn't talking about StackGuard patch. I
was
talking of an application/daemon for which could exists a known buffer
overrun but not a patch (or the patch has not yet been packaged). What to
Steve Bergman wrote:
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 15:29, Ben Reser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:17:50PM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
So, am I just not seeing the negative side to this? Immunix apparently
does not have enough name recognition and influence to make it happen.
But
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
IMHO point everytime out that more or less boundary checking techniques
would
have impact on performance is annoying. MHHO is this: the program compiled
with
boundary checking enabled is slow(er) by a factor of 10 (and even
Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Steve Bergman wrote:
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 15:29, Ben Reser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:17:50PM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
So, am I just not seeing the negative side to this? Immunix
apparently
does not have enough name recognition and influence
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:36:28PM -0700, J. Greenlees wrote:
why not with a standard install have it use the guarded versioon, with
the majority of new Mandrake users coming from a windows environment,
they won't think there was a performance hit at all, since anything over
a 1/100 rate
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 15:29, Ben Reser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:17:50PM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
So, am I just not seeing the negative side to this? Immunix apparently
does not have enough name recognition and influence to make it happen.
But Mandrake does. After seeing
10 matches
Mail list logo
