Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:39:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Adrian T. Filipi-Martin" <atf3r@cs.virginia.edu> To: Graphic Rezidew <rezidew@rezidew.net> Cc: roger@nwu.edu, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Kadokev@ripco.com Subject: Re: FW: [linux-security] pentium bug makes security under linux impo Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.971110083506.8351B-100000@stretch.cs.Virginia.edu> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.971110022053.rezidew@rezidew.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Graphic Rezidew wrote: > note: I have tested this for myself with > netbsd (???) > freebsd (2.2.2) > BSDi (BSD/OS 3.0) > dos (6.22) <hey, somebody has to use it> > linux (as if a version means anything here) > solaris x86 (2.6 and 2.5.1) (with gcc not /usr/ucb/bin/cc) Argh! I built the test program on a 486/66 running 2.2.2-STABLE which correctly trapped the illegal instruction. The same binary does indeed kill a P120 running 2.2.1 cold. Does anyone know of other illegal instruction patterns that can cause this? Is this a unique one that a compiler could be patched to avoid? I know it would not prevent the deliberate creation of such binaries, but it would slow down the novice-crackers who want to play with it. Adrian -- adrian@virginia.edu ---->>>>| If I were stranded on a desert island, and System Administrator --->>>| I could only have one OS for my computer, Neurosurgical Visualzation Lab -->>| it would be FreeBSD. Think about it..... http://www.nvl.virginia.edu/ ->| http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.90.971110083506.8351B-100000>