Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks

From: Nick Maclaren (nmm1_at_cus.cam.ac.uk)
Date: 08/13/03

  • Next message: Erik Aronesty: "Re: Solution for botnets" 
    Date: 13 Aug 2003 16:19:29 GMT

    In article <3F3A2FF6.5090304@cs.uni-sb.de>,
    Stephan Neuhaus <neuhaus@cs.uni-sb.de> 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.

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  • Next message: Erik Aronesty: "Re: Solution for botnets"

    Relevant Pages