Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:41:17 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ASLR work into -HEAD ? Message-ID: <1432744877.1200.65.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5565EB16.20208@FreeBSD.org> References: <555CADB6.202@FreeBSD.org> <CAPQ4fftbUUSMHYXjOD-yO0ZzxdKwXzd5LA5AycrEyKMT3o63xw@mail.gmail.com> <555CC369.1030206@FreeBSD.org> <555FBE83.6080103@FreeBSD.org> <CAHM0Q_O4bCTaVi5HvKohrcYE--Yw8Yoo-0wEp1ScnF=qLiiQiQ@mail.gmail.com> <55656245.3000205@freebsd.org> <5565EB16.20208@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 11:04 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > On 05/27/15 01:20, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > > On 5/24/15 1:43 PM, K. Macy wrote: > >> On May 22, 2015 4:41 PM, "Bryan Drewery"<bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>> On 5/20/2015 12:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>>> My claim is that the majority of "professional" breachers and > >>>> governments already have ASLR workarounds pre-coded and ready > >>>> to launch. Finding an exploit is more difficult than beating > >>>> ASLR so they are not going to hint everyone that they have > >>>> an exploit until they can take all the linux/windows/MacOSX > >>>> at the same time. > >>>> > >>>> The cost for the NSA and/or anonymous to step on > >>>> ASLR is zero. > >> Correct. But who are we really protecting against? If it's the NSA only air > >> gap will really do. In reality it's just a matter of making the cost of > >> circumventing protections exceed the value of the data or items being > >> protected. Locking one's doors and windows doesn't make one's house > >> impenetrable by any stretch, but it does deter opportunistic passerby. > >> > >> Protecting against state overreach is a political matter and shouldn't > >> factor into whether to invest in deterring lesser malfeasors. > >> > >> I'm sorry, but Bryan has it right. The political discussion is a side show. > >> > > > > +1, also having a line item is good. Not having ASLR just makes > > FreeBSD look derp. > > > > And of course I am in the minority that thinks that just because > everybody else (or at least the OSs that matter) has done it > doesn't necessarily make it a great idea. This will be my last email > on the subject and I'll stop whining ... promise. > > > DragonFly BSD has an implementation of ASLR based upon OpenBSD's > > model, added in 2010.[ > > Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR > > enabled > > In 2003, OpenBSD became the first mainstream operating system to > > support partial ASLR > > In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced > > randomization for system libraries > > > > Linux has enabled a weak form of ASLR by default since kernel version > > 2.6.12 (released June 2005). > > > > So basically 1 more week and we can be 10 years behind Linux. :) > > > > Happy birthday ASLR? ;) Somehow it hasn't been terribly useful in 10 years, > and we haven't really missed it, unless there's something I am unaware of > that the security advisories didn't mention. > > If it comes to adopt things because we have to follow the herd, > that I guess I prefer the Dragonfly BSD approach: > > - It is a very simple, to-the-point patch. > - It is off by default (NetBSD too?) but very > easy to setup with through a sysctl. > - Given both points above it is very easy > to revert once the marketing hype foo dies. > > Again just my uneducated opinion, and I won't > spend time on the "quick" approach either. > > regards, > > Pedro. You may be in a minority, but you're not alone. I just hope that when this fad fades away we aren't left with a permenent performance hit that we can't get rid of. The best way to ensure that is to make sure there's a no-performance-hit way to disable this stuff on day one. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1432744877.1200.65.camel>