Re: WordPad/riched20.dll buffer overflow

From: Jason Spence (thalakanat_private)
Date: Sun Nov 28 1999 - 05:11:01 PST

  • Next message: Jim Duncan: "Re: Cisco NAT DoS (VD#1)"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Glynn Clements <glynnat_private>
    To: <BUGTRAQat_private>
    Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 7:22 AM
    Subject: Re: WordPad/riched20.dll buffer overflow
    
    
    > Christopher Rhodes wrote:
    >
    > > I think one of the major problems with the Linux implementation, and
    > > apparently windows too, is that noone pays attention to the added
    security
    > > provided by segmentation (at least to the point of putting the stack on
    a
    > > different segment?)
    >
    > Having separate non-overlapping stack and data segments causes a great
    > many problems if you want to be able to write programs in C, given
    > that a data pointer has to be able to record the address of any
    > variable, regardless of whether it is static (data segment) or
    > automatic (stack segment).
    
    Looking through the source code some more, I see examples of this.  It would
    completely hose the portability of the source code too.  It might be a good
    exercise to get a copy of the Coriolis book, "Linux Core Kernel Commentary",
    which has a bunch of these issues addressed, as well as a discussion of the
    memory model problem in the back.
    
     - Jason
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:14:35 PDT