Re: Buffer overflow prevention
From: Mariusz Woloszyn (emsi_at_ipartners.pl)
Date: 08/19/03
- Previous message: Phillip Whelan: "Remote Execution of Commands in Omail Webmail 0.98.4 and earlier"
- In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Buffer overflow prevention"
- Next in thread: Mark Tinberg: "Re: Buffer overflow prevention"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:12:20 +0200 (EEST) To: Crispin Cowan <crispin@immunix.com>
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> OTOH, I like the variable sorting hack in ProPolice, and thought about
> implementing it, but chose instead to concentrate on PointGuard, which
> protects all of the cases that ProPolice variable sorting protects, and
> then some.
>
I's not just a "hack" it's a great improvement that distinguish ProPolice
from Stackguard.
To be honest, it's the main reason why I migrated form SG to PP.
Beside that PP protects function arguments unlike SG!
To recapitulate: SG vs PP 0:2.
-- Mariusz Wołoszyn Internet Security Specialist, GTS - Internet Partners
- Previous message: Phillip Whelan: "Remote Execution of Commands in Omail Webmail 0.98.4 and earlier"
- In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Buffer overflow prevention"
- Next in thread: Mark Tinberg: "Re: Buffer overflow prevention"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]