Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Talk in #grsecurity
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:44:37 -0500
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:10:02 +0100, Henk Stubbe <henk () herejezus nl> said:
Spender sent me the alleged exploit for exec-shield... and it bypasses the protections offered by exec-shield completely without the need for brute forcing.
Does it actually bypass a protection that exec-shield claims to give, or is it doing something that exec-shield doesn't claim to be able to stop? There's no love lost between the pax and exec-shield crews: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107209069402935&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107209256604442&w=2 So I'd evaluate very carefully any claim made by either crew. It's possible that there is a real hole in exec-shield. It's also possible that the "exploit" is simply doing stuff that exec-shield won't stop by design - remember that a design *goal* of exec-shield was to not be as kernel-intrusive as pax, so it would have a smaller footprint and be less likely to break stuff unintentionally.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Talk in #grsecurity Ed Street (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity andrewg (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity andrewg (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Joshua Brindle (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Dave Aitel (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Joshua Brindle (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Peter Busser (Mar 27)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Joshua Brindle (Mar 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Henk Stubbe (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 26)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Peter Busser (Mar 27)
- Re: Talk in #grsecurity Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 26)