Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks
From: Nick Maclaren (nmm1_at_cus.cam.ac.uk)
Date: 13 Aug 2003 16:19:29 GMT
In article <3F3A2FF6.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Stephan Neuhaus <email@example.com> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> Well, considering that lots of people have implemented just such a
>> design (as well as many variations), and a fair number of us aren't
>> dead yet, I wouldn't call it speculation!
>I stand corrected. Do you have any pointers to good papers or other
>documentation about designs like these?
I am afraid not. Many of them date from the days when we Just Did It.
If I recall correctly, HP-UX on the 68K was rising stack, but I can't
remember if it was a falling heap as well.
Most people familiar with a range of systems in the 1970s will have
seen several models, but probably won't be able to remember the details.
They really weren't very important, as there is nothing fundamental
about such things.
As far as I know, few papers on the advantages of dual-stack systems
were ever published, which is perhaps why they have fallen into
abeyance. If anyone gets time, hacking such a system into a compiler
would be easy and investigating the advantages little harder.