RE: Execution Prevention (Was: A small editorial)

["Ben Nagy" <bnagy () eeye com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf 
> Of Jamie C. Pole
[...]
> We should definitely switch back to relevant stuff now, though.
>
> Has anyone done serious research into the execution prevention  
> measures that Intel claims to include in newer Pentiums?  
[...]
[DudeVanWinkle]
> > all application protection
> > vendors claiming they have "execution prevention" are lying

Not that anyone is likely to notice this among all the noise right
now...

I've done quite a lot of research into the area of execution protection
and related technolgies to complicate / prevent code execution, which I
like to think is 'serious'. You can find my whitepaper at:

www.eeye.com/research/whitepapers

"Generic Anti-Exploitation Technology for Windows

This paper will perform an impartial examination of generic
anti-exploitation technology for the Windows platform. Beginning with a
brief tour of the most important historical anti-exploitation projects,
we will then analyse recently introduced security features in Windows
XP, Service Pack 2 and Windows 2003, Service Pack 1, and summarise the
remaining areas of vulnerability. Finally, we will discuss the various
general approaches taken by 3rd party technology and also examine some
possible future developments."

Sorry about the minor plug, but it does seem pretty relevant.

Cheers,

ben
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/