On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:56:00AM +0100, Hugh McColl wrote:
> What processors are you including here? I'm interested to know how
> would you prevent stack-buffer overrun exploits at the O/S level on an
> x86 architecture, if you believe this is practical? Are you assuming
> compiler support??
Ta
Christopher's post about x86 hardware memory protection (in the "Is
Linux really that secure?" thread) reminded me of something that C
programmers may find useful for tracking memory faults. The first is
electric fence (http://perens.com/FreeSoftware/), which places the end
of ea
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:02, Matthew Gregan wrote:
> > Neither your ubiquitous *86* machines nor, to my knowledge, any other
> > computer chipset found in the current crop of personal machines is
> > able to produce a hardware segfault on array bound errors or, stack
> > protection errors, i.e. unde
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:15, Matthew Gregan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:31:51AM +0100, Hugh McColl wrote:
>
> There are lots of software solutions. Even Microsoft's Visual C
> compiler has an option that places a canary on the stack to detect the
> function's return address has been overwrit
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:31:51AM +0100, Hugh McColl wrote:
> There are software solutions to this in the linux world, such as the
> StackGuard or 'stack smashing protector' extensions to gcc e.g.
> http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/
There are lots of software solutions. Even Micr
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:04:59PM +1300, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> No software running on a current small computer is ever secure,
> because while they have the compute power many times that of the
> mainframe of yore, they do not have the security features which every
> big-iron machine had as
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:04, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> while they have the compute power many times that of the mainframe of yore,
> they do not have the security features which every big-iron machine had as
> a matter of course.
>
> Neither your ubiquitous *86* machines nor, to my knowledge, any
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:08, Rex Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 17:04, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > Neither your ubiquitous *86* machines nor, to my knowledge, any other
> > computer chipset found in the current crop of personal machines is able
> > to produce a hardware segfault on array
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 17:04, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> Neither your ubiquitous *86* machines nor, to my knowledge, any other computer
> chipset found in the current crop of personal machines is able to produce a
> hardware segfault on array bound errors or, stack protection errors, i.e.
> un
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 17:36, Vik Olliver wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 12:24, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> > Statistics can be made to say anything, 48% of people know that.
>
> Yeah, but 87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
And the rest are repeated inaccurately, apparently.
Vik :v)
--
This
5 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is Linux really that secure?
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:18, Nathan Cook wrote:
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=7980
>
> Found this article, the results are interesting...?
>
> This could be a bad thing for Linux in genera
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 12:24, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> Statistics can be made to say anything, 48% of people know that.
Yeah, but 87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Vik :v)
--
This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has
forged the e-mail headers on someone else's mac
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:18, Nathan Cook wrote:
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=7980
>
> Found this article, the results are interesting...?
>
> This could be a bad thing for Linux in general though couldn't it?
No software running on a current small computer is ever secure,
Hi there,
anton wrote:
Zane Gilmore wrote:
Brad Beveridge wrote:
"The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other
attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the
study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
Hmm, so they don't worry about the big stuff S
Zane Gilmore wrote:
Brad Beveridge wrote:
"The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other
attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the
study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
Hmm, so they don't worry about the big stuff Since I don't run
windows,
Brad Beveridge wrote:
"The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other
attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the
study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
Hmm, so they don't worry about the big stuff Since I don't run
windows, neither do I :)
Stat
atistics can be made to say anything, 48% of people know that.
Brad
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:18 PM
> To: CLUG
> Subject: Is Linux really that secure?
>
>
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/n
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=7980
Found this article, the results are interesting...?
This could be a bad thing for Linux in general though couldn't it?
-Nathan
18 matches
Mail list logo
