mailing list archives
Re: Buffer overflow prevention
From: Jedi/Sector One <j () pureftpd org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:15:03 +0200
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:17:29PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
AFAIK all those combined do bring real security against generic exploits.
"Real security" is not the word.
PaX / Propolice / W^X / non-exec stacks don't solve bugs. What they do is
to _abort_ execution of a process when it behaves abnormally.
So instead of giving attackers the opportunity to run arbitrary code, you
only give them the ability to cause a denial of service.
This kind of protection should be coupled with tools that automatically
restart daemons when they crash (ex: daemontools and monit) to actually keep
the service running when under attack. Still, all of this is a couple of
__ /*- Frank DENIS (Jedi/Sector One) <j () 42-Networks Com> -*\ __
\ '/ <a href="http://www.PureFTPd.Org/"> Secure FTP Server </a> \' /
\/ <a href="http://www.Jedi.Claranet.Fr/"> Misc. free software </a> \/
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Thomas Sjögren (Aug 14)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Shaun Clowes (Aug 15)
- Re: Buffer overflow prevention, (continued)