From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263247AbVGOIr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:47:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263248AbVGOIr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:47:29 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:29110 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263247AbVGOIr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:47:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Buffer Over-runs, was Open source firewalls From: Arjan van de Ven To: rvk@prodmail.net Cc: omb@bluewin.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <42D7734D.9070204@prodmail.net> References: <20050713163424.35416.qmail@web32110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <42D63AD0.6060609@aitel.hist.no> <42D63D4A.2050607@prodmail.net> <42D658A8.4040009@aitel.hist.no> <42D658A9.7050706@prodmail.net> <42D6ECED.7070504@khandalf.com> <42D75A93.5010904@prodmail.net> <1121410260.3179.3.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <42D7734D.9070204@prodmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:46:54 +0200 Message-Id: <1121417215.3179.7.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 13:56 +0530, RVK wrote: > >except this is no longer true really ;) > > > >randomisation for example makes this a lot harder to do. > >gcc level tricks to prevent buffer overflows are widely in use nowadays > >too (FORTIFY_SOURCE and -fstack-protector). The combination of this all > >makes it a LOT harder to actually exploit a buffer overflow on, say, a > >distribution like Fedora Core 4. > > > > > > > > > Still is very new....not every one can immediately start using gcc 4. it;s also available for gcc 3.4 as patch (and included in FC3 and RHEL4 for example) so it's new? so what? doesn't make it less true that it nowadays is a lot harder to exploit such bugs on recent distros.