Re: Beating memory address randomization (secuirty) features in Unix/Linux
"Mike Davis" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.vulnerabilities |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <00dd01c65758$c5d643d0$0301a8c0@cheshire> |
wouldnt this also apply to the propolice stack ramdomization as well? not just pax -phar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Bailey" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: Beating memory address randomization (secuirty) features in Unix/Linux > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > >> I believe they're talking about distros WITH RANDOMIZATION IE PAX >> enabled. >> > > Obviously. My point is that the original poster didn't > seem to be concerned with more advanced issues, > like PaX. Rather, they just wanted to learn how to > evade the basic stack base randomization code > employed on many popular Linux distros. > > Let them worry about things like PaX later. > > Also, tell me how often is PaX/grsec employed? > Clearly, not often. Distros aren't even interested in > deploying it as much as they are interested in > the new vanilla kernel way of integrating security > into the core code. That code still has a long way > to go. > > Don "north" Bailey > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.5 (Build 5050) > > iQA/AwUBRDFk8l/Ie1ANMtLuEQK9+ACfbxWb4zSGmebcNduqXtqPyBk3PGAAoMJR > rdo4rvXNExT1UBj3OnF8P/EE > =iFTb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >