From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63e8a95e8331225 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-17 14:29:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Partial Hardware Protection for Buffer Overrun Exploits Date: 17 Apr 2003 17:29:08 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <3E9D8AB6.4090009@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1050614948 8186 199.172.62.241 (17 Apr 2003 21:29:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:29:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36253 Date: 2003-04-17T17:29:08-04:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler writes: > There is already an easier solution (at least for x86-CPU's): Don't > use a purely flat model, with this I mean, you shouldn't use the same > address space for both data/stack and code. This could already be > accomplished with the standard protection/paging features of the x86. Well, on any machine that has an "executable" protection bit on each page, you (the OS) can simply make sure all executable memory is read-only. No need for the x86 segmentation junk. But as you and others say, that disallows all kinds of useful stuff like trampolines and self-modifying code (JIT compilers and the like). > >There has to be a better solution to the current crop of > >buffer exploits, that are being used daily. > > Yes. What about using Ada? ;-) Amen. - Bob