From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jun 27 21:46:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25281 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from brooklyn.slack.net (root@brooklyn.slack.net [206.41.21.102]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25276 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 21:45:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pfm@brooklyn.slack.net) Received: from localhost (pfm@localhost) by brooklyn.slack.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA16067; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:48:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Patrick McAndrew To: jtb cc: Wojciech Sobczuk , fpscha@schapachnik.com.ar, Niall Smart , ncb05@uow.edu.au, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: non-executable stack? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, jtb wrote: > What do you mean, checking for this is very easy, just before something > gets executed, you take argv and envp and loop through them looking for > those certain ascii characters, it's like 10-15 lines of code, if that. I > don't see why you'd think that would be cumbersome to the kernel. I thought you were talking about userland programs. However, this could make it hardware dependant (as control codes can change between archs), and if this routine is called several hundred times a second (ona busy system), it could slow things down a bit. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message