RE: realpath(3) et al

From: Chris Odell (chris_at_redstarnetworks.net)
Date: 08/12/03

  • Next message: Mike Tancsa: "RE: realpath(3) et al" 
    To: <security@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:26:36 -0700

    I would do the same -
     
       For Hosting providers this is actually a benefit for tax reasons -
     FreeBSD is a not for profit organization.
     
     Chris Odell

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org
    [mailto:owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Devon H. O'Dell
    Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:00 AM
    To: 'Jason Stone'; security@freebsd.org
    Subject: RE: realpath(3) et al

    In any case, IBM has a stack smashing protection patch for GCC 3.3 on
    FreeBSD 4.8 available at
    http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/buildfreebsd.html (the
    description page is at http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/).
    It currently works in the latest cvsupped source from 5.1 as well (I've
    built and tested it).

    Kind regards,

    Devon H. O'Dell
    Systems and Network Engineer
    Simpli, Inc. Web Hosting
    http://www.simpli.biz

    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
    > security@freebsd.org] Namens Jason Stone
    > Verzonden: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:40 PM
    > Aan: security@freebsd.org
    > Onderwerp: RE: realpath(3) et al
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    >
    > > Protecting against stack smashing is quite important; I think many
    > > hosting environments not using LISP or other
    > > executable-stack-reliant packages would benefit from this. By
    > > negating the ability to execute injected code through a buffer
    > > overflow, security is highly increased.
    >
    > I think that this topic has come up before on the list - please check
    > the archives before you get into it again.
    >
    > I think that the consensus has been something along the lines of, it
    > would be nice, _but_:
    >
    > 1) It requires ugly tricks to implement on i386;
    > 2) It does not canonically stop the exploitation of buffer overruns -
    > yes, it stops the current attacks, but the underlying problem that
    an
    > attacker can change the flow of program execution remains;
    > 3) It would break a whole bunch of stuff.
    >
    >
    > -Jason
    >
    >
    >
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -
    > -
    > Freud himself was a bit of a cold fish, and one cannot avoid the
    > suspicion
    > that he was insufficiently fondled when he was an infant.
    > -- Ashley Montagu
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
    > Comment: See https://private.idealab.com/public/jason/jason.gpg
    >
    > iD8DBQE/ONIbswXMWWtptckRAmeWAKCR0+gKO1TeBncCaIzGaz0OuIaEnwCgpe7u
    > o6iRC44JMJe86lhPj7CqdEg=
    > =ijiO
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > _______________________________________________
    > freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-
    > unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Mike Tancsa: "RE: realpath(3) et al"
    • Quantcast