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-----
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.