Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks

From: Frank Cusack (fcusack_at_fcusack.com)
Date: 08/19/03 

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:49:20 -0700

On 19 Aug 2003 09:24:38 GMT nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> If the above descriptions are correct, then the FreeBSD implementation
> may not be standard conforming. Whether or not it is, I believe that
> pre-C90 implementations of strncpy did NOT always pad the result to
> the full length. I believe that some DID always null-terminate, too,
> if the length was greater than zero.

Do you mean C99? I'm aware of C89 and C99 only, but it may just be
too early in the AM for me.

You are correct, early implementations varied on their behavior.

/fc

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Implicit int
    ... not all implementations do so; ... ones don't check whether the requested memory is available until it's ... I doubt the C standard permits implementations to randomly crash for valid program when they access properly allocated memory. ... Standard conforming, or not, I'm on your side: This is hardly an acceptable behavior. ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks
    ... > If the above descriptions are correct, then the FreeBSD implementation ... > may not be standard conforming. ... > pre-C90 implementations of strncpy did NOT always pad the result to ... early implementations varied on their behavior. ...
    (comp.security.unix)