Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: infobahn (infobahn_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:56:55 +0000 (UTC)
Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> infobahn <infobahn@btinternet.com> writes:
> > I mean that buffer overruns represent only a small fraction of the
> > bugs likely to be present in a buggy program.
>
> It's been the cause of a huge number of exploits that lead to total
> attacker takeover of the program. Most other types of bugs have less
> severe consequences.
What evidence have you to support that claim? Buffer overruns leading
to machine "capture" are dramatic, but what makes you think other bugs
don't also lead to serious consequences?
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
