From owner-freebsd-security Mon Aug 17 02:16:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA11645 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from aniwa.sky (aniwa.actrix.gen.nz [203.96.56.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA11640 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:16:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrew@squiz.co.nz) Received: from localhost (andrew@localhost) by aniwa.sky (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA01212; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:10:53 +1200 (NZST) (envelope-from andrew@squiz.co.nz) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:10:52 +1200 (NZST) From: Andrew McNaughton X-Sender: andrew@aniwa.sky Reply-To: andrew@squiz.co.nz To: Michael Richards <026809r@dragon.acadiau.ca> cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why don't winblows program have buffer overruns? In-Reply-To: <199808162301.UAA09103@dragon.acadiau.ca> 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 Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Michael Richards wrote: > Why aren't there buffer overruns for winblows that overrun the stack and > execute nasty code? I realise that there is no way to get a shell, but being > able to exec "format" is still a useful thing for a cracker to do on a > windows box. Thinking a bit more about this, I suppose it says something about hackers being motivated more by kudos than profit. While there isn't much publicity to be had in hitting someone's desktop machine, those machines probably account for most storage of sensitive data. Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message