Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Future of buffer overflows ?
From: "Bluefish (P.Magnusson)" <11a () GMX NET>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:38:49 +0100
You might want to think about how dynamic linking fits into this world. (Hint: I think anytime you have dynamic linking, non-exec permissions can be bypassed.)
No, you're wrong. Perhaps todays implementations require it, but it is *not* a fundamental requirement for dynamic linking. Basicly you'd write the page/segment and then set it none-writeable. Simple confinement principle. (may be tricky to code though - but most certainly possible) ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. http://www.11a.nu || http://bluefish.11a.nu eleventh alliance development & security team http://www.eff.org/cafe
Current thread:
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Thomas Dullien (Nov 03)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Crispin Cowan (Nov 04)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Michael H. Warfield (Nov 05)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Nov 06)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Granquist, Lamont (Nov 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Nov 05)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Thomas Dullien (Nov 05)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? Bluefish (P.Magnusson) (Nov 09)
- Re: Future of buffer overflows ? David Wagner (Nov 10)