Re: vulndev-1 and a suggestion about the ensuing discussion
Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu
Date: 05/17/03
- Previous message: xenophi1e: "Re: MSIE integer overflows"
- In reply to: xenophi1e: "Re: vulndev-1 and a suggestion about the ensuing discussion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: xenophi1e <oliver.lavery@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:22:49 -0400
On Fri, 16 May 2003 16:46:57 -0000, xenophi1e <oliver.lavery@sympatico.ca> 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').
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: xenophi1e: "Re: MSIE integer overflows"
- In reply to: xenophi1e: "Re: vulndev-1 and a suggestion about the ensuing discussion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|