From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Feb 10 04:38:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA00383
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nic.follonett.no (nic.follonett.no [194.198.43.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA00372
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nic.follonett.no (8.8.5/8.8.3) with UUCP id NAA24345; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:36:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: from oo7 (oo7.dimaga.com [192.0.0.65]) by dimaga.com (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id NAA11244; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:11:20 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970210131120.00a34940@dimaga.com>
X-Sender: eivind@dimaga.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:11:21 +0100
To: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert)
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com>
Subject: Re: buffer overruns
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 11:14 PM 2/9/97 +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote:
>The easiest way to close all this bugs is to make the stack non executable
>(from a processor standpoint) but I'm not sure you can do it in Intel
>processors.

Yes, you can.  This, however, involve a lot more segment operations than
FreeBSD presently use, which will seriously hurt performance, as well as
being a pain to implement.



Eivind Eklund  perhaps@yes.no  http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/
eivind@freebsd.org