Re: FormatGuard

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 10:09:22 PDT

Next message: dullienat_private: "Re[2]: insecure signal handler design"

Previous message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: FormatGuard"
In reply to: James Antill: "Re: FormatGuard"
Next in thread: Crispin Cowan: "Re: FormatGuard"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

James Antill wrote:

>  Yes, it's usualy a bug but yes those bugs are usualy very bad
> security wise.
>
>  It is also the only thing that FormatGuard protects against, are we
> having different conversations?

I suspect that you're mistaken about "the only thing that FormatGuard
protects against", but I can't tell because I don't understand your claim.
FormatGuard is a *dynamic* check:  There exists correct code that has dynamic
format strings (internationalization being the primary example).  Static
checks cannot protect against format bugs without gitching about i18n code.
FormatGuard can.

So with that clarification, can you explain how some other defense does what
FormatGuard does?

Thanks,
    Crispin

--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
Available for purchase: http://wirex.com//Products/Immunix/purchase.html

Next message: dullienat_private: "Re[2]: insecure signal handler design"
Previous message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: FormatGuard"
In reply to: James Antill: "Re: FormatGuard"
Next in thread: Crispin Cowan: "Re: FormatGuard"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 30 2001 - 14:37:01 PDT