Hrmm why does this bring HP to mind... oh yeah I remember... HP-> "... oh you say you found a bunch of overflows... that does not matter... there is no way you will bypass our non-executable stack.. we are not going to fix any of them... we are gonna let em fester... our non-exec stack is Hack proof" (time elapse... 2 months) SNO-> "...oh yeah we bypassed your non-exec stack and have successfully exploited several of those overflows we told you about a few months ago... bash-2.05a$ id uid=201(dotslash) gid=15(users) groups=0(system) bash-2.05a$ ./TRU64_su # id uid=0(root) gid=15(users) groups=15(users),0(system) # sysconfig -q proc executable_stack proc: executable_stack = 0 (hrmm your stack REALLY helped out) HP-> "ok thanks we will procede to sue you now" -KF > > It's been proved many times that non-executable stack adds NO security at > all. > Every single class of vulnerabilities exploitable with executable stack > can be also exploited with non-executable stack. > See for example our article (http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=56&a=5) > which shows how to bypass a stack protector even with a non-executable > stack. > > What we're discussing here is an internal structures and data protecting. > IMHO the ProPolice (http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/security/ssp/), > is the best protection in this kind, even comparing to "two stack" > approach. > Beside that it's an existing, well tested and wide used (for example > OpenBSD uses it by default now). > I see no real reason why the major Linux companies are not using it for > its products. > > Best regards, > > -- > Mariusz Woloszyn > Internet Security Specialist, GTS - Internet Partners > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 14 2003 - 17:26:11 PDT