From owner-freebsd-security Sun Jul 19 18:18:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22527 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22522 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:18:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA07761; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:17:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Brett Glass cc: dg@root.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The 99,999-bug question: Why can you execute from the stack? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:28:00 MDT." <199807192228.QAA03712@lariat.lariat.org> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:17:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7757.900897422@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I'd much rather see this technique revised than leave a hole open for > buffer overflow attacks. We don't want to get a reputation for lax > security. If you can make it all work and want to hack up a proof of concept, go for it. Right now, however, I think you're letting annoyance get the better part of intelligence. More importantly, making suggestions which are almost worded like demands when it is very clear that you do _not_ understand the subject in question is only a good way of antagonizing people. You, of all people, should know that. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message