From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 26 00:08:36 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFDD16A4D5 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrytoung@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B2F13C44B for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:08:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrytoung@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i29so736610wxd.7 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:08:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=WGH9/S+RYSyJmGD6YnXPwKVeoUJZveIZpW2XUVsqbKM=; b=Mni+F8GhDZzDMDi10MmJqnDKDUqMiuAmlF7c5uwiPLkEkTXFbs4n360sKEnpWdBpgkABsO/oxhvIJfjJ7oJaH8rrId9nxcfcpV9yvq3l/hIhDMFpksSlFaGGYnkwgFDj4Yre9UYJtD46pe9522JEdDE+ixQda59hJsPLlrmSh+w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=LgGAsknqOVQDK8aM4eXcylU5GIaytkIKiMFjjpHMqj6pLpv5nFf1jiD+IkzqRZcRgKpPHwchGa/231K/icI7d54fz/UfvJAq1HgOge3v0ijuralHkF1w56KDxmo9XzQ5iN2DAYqDFFXHfkxGOFPm/DqhnE6C4+F71kSYGvV9Id4= Received: by 10.142.158.17 with SMTP id g17mr1681034wfe.106.1201306113884; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:08:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.51.19 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:08:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <86068e730801251608w502edfc4ja58875f13336f461@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:08:33 -0800 From: "Jerry Toung" To: "Mike Meyer" In-Reply-To: <20080125185527.639f62b1@bhuda.mired.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86068e730801251451n650b7abcyf3d008fddec2c33f@mail.gmail.com> <20080125185527.639f62b1@bhuda.mired.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a new syscalls table X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:08:36 -0000 Thank you for the feedback Mike. Points well taken. I'll look into the NetBSD thing. Jerry On Jan 25, 2008 3:55 PM, Mike Meyer < mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:51:44 -0800 "Jerry Toung" > wrote: > > > Hello list, > > I am trying to create an environment where you can't run my binaries on > your > > box and I can't run > > your binaries on my system (x86 platform). > > For that, I have modified the system calls table (i.e everything is > offset > > by 5). > [...] > > When it comes back, it panics in kern/kern_exit.c with > > "Going nowhere without my init!" > > > > How can I make this work? > > Treat it like a cross-platform build, and install to a different > partition on your disk, then boot that partition. > > > Is my initial objective even possible? > > I think the correct approach would be to have a cpu that no else in the > > world has, > > any in between solution.? > > Depends on what you mean by "correct approach". Basically, it's a > security issue. So you almost certainly can't make it mathematically > impossible, but you can raise the cost of people running your binaries > on their box - and vice versa - pretty much as high as you want, > providing you're willing to pay for it. I'm not sure how well fabbing > custom silicon would work; it's certainly at the high end of the cost > scale, but it can be reverse engineered, and then your custom CPU > could be emulated in software for a lot less than it cost you to > design the silicon. Of course, you could take that approach yourself > to save money. > > On the other hand, once you realize that it's a security issue, you > can start using security tools for this. For instance, the NetBSD > executable verification feature does half the job - it won't run their > executables on your system. By tweaking it a bit - encrypting as well > as signing, for instance - you'd do both halves, with better > performance than emulating a new CPU, and a lot less work. Personally, > I think that'd also be more useful to the rest of the community than > an offset syscall table as well. > > -- > Mike Meyer > http://www.mired.org/consulting.html > Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >