[31179] in bugtraq
Re: Buffer overflow prevention
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timo Sirainen)
Thu Aug 14 16:24:40 2003
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:17:29 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
To: Mariusz Woloszyn <emsi@ipartners.pl>
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0308141926230.2830-100000@dzyngiel.ipartners.pl>
Message-Id: <F289F033-CE8B-11D7-B43D-000393CC2E90@iki.fi>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 20:26 Europe/Helsinki, Mariusz Woloszyn
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Stephen Clowater wrote:
>
>> Also, you can use chpax, and turn on a non-executable stack, and with
>> a small
> It's been proved many times that non-executable stack adds NO security
> at
> all.
> Every single class of vulnerabilities exploitable with executable stack
> can be also exploited with non-executable stack.
What he forgot to mention is that PAX and grsec also gives you
non-executable heap and randomized address bases to prevent
return-to-libc attacks. AFAIK all those combined do bring real security
against generic exploits.
