RE: In response to alleged vulnerabilities in Microsoft Visual C++ security checks feature

From: David LeBlanc (dleblancat_private)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 09:06:01 PST

  • Next message: Paul L Daniels: "Outlook \r expliots - ripMIME fix."

    > From: Crispin Cowan [mailto:crispinat_private] 
     
    > Funnily enough, this book (published in November 2001) 
    > actually refers to the stack ornaments that provide for overflow
    detection as 
    > "canaries," a term coined in the StackGuard 1998 paper. See 
    > the book's index and search for "canary" 
    > http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/index/5612.asp#Index
     
    I can tell you why this occurred, as I'm the one who wrote that phrase.
    I have followed Stackguard on this mailing list for quite some time
    (dating back to well before I joined Microsoft), and I believe had a
    brief conversation with you about it at USENIX. In fact, if you search
    on "Cowan" or "Stackguard", you will also find a hit (in the same
    paragraph, actually). It seemed to me to be an appropriate phrase to
    describe the functionality.
    
    The exact quote is:
    
    "Tools exist to make static buffer overruns more difficult to exploit.
    StackGuard, developed by Crispin Cowan and others, uses a test value -
    known as a canary after the miner's practice of taking a canary into a
    coal mine - to make a static buffer overrun much less trivial to
    exploit. Visual C++ .NET incorporates a similar approach."
    
    So the reason I used that exact term is because I was explicitly
    mentioning your application and work. Although a fair bit of the content
    of the book is Windows-centric, I tried to make the sections I wrote
    which applied to all platforms as generic as possible. I felt it would
    be a serious omission to write a chapter on buffer overruns and not
    mention your work.
    
    However, I do not work on the compiler team, and the /GS option was
    implemented before I became aware of it. I have no idea what processes
    went into that.
    
    > If it was independent invention, there are a lot of 
    > surprising coincidences.
    
    The mention of your name in "Writing Secure Code" is not at all related
    to the implementation of the /GS option. I don't think you should find
    it surprising to be mentioned in a chapter about buffer overruns. As a
    former academic, I try and cite relevant work when writing about any
    given area.
    
    David LeBlanc
    dleblancat_private 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 14:13:04 PST