[31219] in bugtraq
Re: Buffer overflow prevention
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Crispin Cowan)
Fri Aug 15 15:49:33 2003
Message-ID: <3F3D2AEE.5000007@immunix.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:48:14 -0700
From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@immunix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shaun Clowes <shaun@securereality.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20030814232724.GA22404@cardini.homenet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Shaun Clowes wrote:
>Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but I believe that the vast
>majority of the exploitation of systems is being performed by people
>with no knowledge of how to write an exploit and that the vast majority
>of exploits are fragile. Doing anything that makes you different from
>every other installation of Linux/HPUX/Solaris/InsertOSHere will
>drastically decrease the changes of any point and click exploit working
>against you.
>
>Could a determined (and knowledgable) attacker still get through? Sure.
>But if we're talking protections that take very little effort to
>implement, have a minor performance impact and will save your
>skin some of the time, it's obvious that it's worth deploying them. As
>long as you're not kidding yourself that you're then totally secure.
>
Exactly: trivial changes will protect you from script kiddies.
Non-bypassability is required to protect you from determined attackers.
It depends on your threat model: how much will a penetration event cost
you? What is it worth to someone to hack you?
>Its kind of reminiscent of that old joke about the two guys running away
>from the lion. You don't have to beat the lion, just the other person.
>
But if you taste better (you are a bank and he is a basement RH box)
then the lion may choose to chase you anyway.
Crispin
--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/
Chief Scientist, Immunix http://immunix.com
http://www.immunix.com/shop/
