Re: vulndev-1 and a suggestion about the ensuing discussion

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 16:22:49 PDT

  • Next message: tonyat_private: "OWL Intranet Engine"

    On Fri, 16 May 2003 16:46:57 -0000, xenophi1e <oliver.laveryat_private>  said:
    
    > That's interesting. I'm passingly familiar with the VMs used by AS/400, 
    > but I wasn't aware that out of bound accesses would immediately trap. I 
    > wonder how they do this...
    
    > I was under the impression that VMs used in this way were really just a 
    > sort of defense in depth. They don't prevent an individual process from 
    > being compromised but prevent that compromise from expanding beyond the 
    > boundaries of the VM. Do they really trap overruns from one valid chunk 
    > of memory into an adjacent one? 
    
    It's a tagged architecture, with descriptors.  When you reference memory,
    you aren't referencing a memory address - you're using a reference to a
    descriptor that contains length/type/etc info (so it knows if it's stack,
    heap, executable, and so on).
    
    It's hardly a new idea - the original Multics penetration analysis paper (see
    http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/history/karg74.pdf) discusses on page 11 of
    the hardware on the Honeywell 645, which was a mid-1960's machine.
    
    Unfortunately, we haven't learned much in the meantime:
    
    http://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics.pdf
    
    (Incidentally, I consider *BOTH* of these papers required reading for
    anybody who's subscribed to 'vuln-dev').
    
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 17 2003 - 17:26:59 PDT