Nmap Security Scanner
Intro
Ref Guide
Install Guide
Download
Changelog
Book
Docs
Security Lists
Nmap Hackers
Nmap Dev
Bugtraq
Full Disclosure
Pen Test
Basics
More
Security Tools
Pass crackers
Sniffers
Vuln Scanners
Web scanners
Wireless
Exploitation
Packet crafters
More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:
|
 |
Bugtraq
mailing list archives
Re: Buffer overflow prevention
From: "Matt D. Harris" <vesper () depraved org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:49:18 -0400
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Solaris 2.6 and above also support a kernel variable which can be set
via /etc/system called "noexec_user_stack", which can make the stack for
userland processes non-executable by default. Note that this behavior
is the default for 64-bit binaries in Solaris 7, 8, and 9, and this
kernel variable forces the behavior for 32-bit binaries. I run all
sorts of odd software and have never had an issue with having this
always turned on for all of my systems.
You just don't get it, do you? Are you even reading what people are
saying? Protecting just the stack is basically useless. 99.9% of
exploits that use the stack can be rewritten to NOT use the stack!
But W^X protects THE ENTIRE ADDRESS SPACE.
That's fine. I'm not pointing out this functionality as some sort of
be-all-end-all fix for everything. I'm simply pointing out a function
that a system provides that people may find useful. And how many script
kiddies are resourceful enough to re-write an exploit to *not* use the
stack? The fact is, simply preventing the stack isn't perfect. But
it's not entirely worthless, either. To call anything that does
something useful entirely worthless is just downright silly. In today's
day and age, one should do everything possible to protect themselves,
whether it's going to be effective 1% of the time of 99% of the time.
So, when are you releasing the Solaris kernel module to support the W^X
stuff? Someone who's so married to a specific bit of defense would
certainly want to release it to as many potential users as possible,
whether they use OpenBSD or not, right? :-)
By Date
By Thread
Current thread:
- Re: Heterogeneity as a form of obscurity, and its usefulness, (continued)
|
|