Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

[David Weinehall <tao@debian.org>]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * pageexec@freemail.hu <pageexec@freemail.hu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
> > > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct
> > > > approach/mindset.
> > > 
> > > i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying
> > > problem" can be solved. (in a deterministic fashion)
> > 
> > I know neither exec-shield nor PaX and therefore have no bias or
> > preference - I thought I should chirp in on your comment here Ingo...
> > 
> > ...
> > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield
> > > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental
> > > end-result: a child will be born ;-)
> > 
> > Yes and no.  I would think that the chances of a child being born are
> > greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month,
> > compared to a first week pregnancy.
> > 
> > I assume you get my point  :)
> 
> the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_
> that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-)
> 
> [ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ]

Yeah, sex is *usually* a much more pleasant experience than having your
machine broken into, even if it results in a pregnancy. =)


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/