Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:05:09 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Borja Marcos <borjamar@sarenet.es> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: non-exec stack Message-ID: <20010711140509.A88898@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <01071122332004.02234@nenuial.arnor.es>; from borjamar@sarenet.es on Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:33:20PM %2B0200 References: <001901c10830$b51e7890$0100a8c0@alexus> <20010711145325.L66856-100000@scribble.fsn.hu> <20010711121731.A87389@xor.obsecurity.org> <01071122332004.02234@nenuial.arnor.es>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:33:20PM +0200, Borja Marcos wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2001 21:17, you wrote: > > That's a different thing (it doesn't make the stack non-executable, it > > patches gcc to generate code which tries to catch and prevent > > stack-smashing buffer overflows). I don't know of anyone who has > > written a non-exec stack patch for FreeBSD. It would certainly be > > welcome. > > I wonder... how is it implemented? ¿Perhaps checking that the page is not > a stack page whenever the process enters a system call? ¿Checking the same > at context switches? There's been lots of discussion over the years on bugtraq; see the archives at www.securityfocus.com. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7TL+FWry0BWjoQKURAtpyAKCUoU0kyZ5z04euygDaYGrnyjVe+wCbBzDG 2nGmqFVIub90UyoEj7WGfA4= =eVZh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010711140509.A88898>