Buffer overflow prevention

From: Eygene A. Ryabinkin (reaat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 03:28:33 PDT

  • Next message: Omicron@portcullis-security.com: "Portcullis Security Advisory: CiscoWorks 2000 Privilege Escalatio n Vulnerabilities"

      Hi!
     I have an idea on buffer overflow prevention. I doubt that it's new, but I
    haven't seen an implementation of it in any freely distributable Un*x system.
    So, I hardly need your comments on it.
    
     Preliminary: I'm talking about Intel x86 architecture, but maybe it will be
    applicable to others as well.
    
     The idea itself: all (correct me if I'm wrong) buffer overflows are based on
    the fact that we're using the stack, referenced by SS:ESP pair, both for
    procedure return address and for local variables. It seems to me, that would we
    have two stacks -- one for real stack and one for variables -- it will solve
    a bunch of problems. So, my suggestion: let us organise two segments: one for
    normal stack, growing downwards, referenced by SS:ESP pair and the second one,
    for local variables, referenced by GS:EBP pair, with either upwards or
    downwards growing. Now, if we use first segment for passing variables and
    procedure return addresses (normal stack usage), and second segment only for
    local procedure variables, we will have the following advantages:
     1) Local variables and return address will be physically (by means of CPU)
        divided and it will not be possible to touch the return address by
        overflowing local buffer.
     2) The procedure introduces only one extra register -- GS, since EBP is
    		very often used for the stack frame.
    Of course, this two segments can be made non-executable, just in case.
    
     What we need to implement the idea: first, rewrite kernel to organise two
    segments for every process and to place proper values into the segment
    registers upon the program startup. Second, rewrite the compiler to support
    the new scheme of local variables addresation. So, the changes are minimal,
    in some sence.
    
     As I said, I hardly need your criticism, suggestions, etc. of any type.
    	rea
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 11:04:33 PDT