This is a foolish statement. As long as minor programming bugs result
in attackers being able to overwrite arbitrary memory, you don't have a
"truly secure system".
> >With an expand up stack, where the ESP increments rather than
> >decrements on a push,
Methinks thou art not well-versed in the ways of Intel iAPX86 assembly.
> This doesnt save you from buffer underflows :
> void giant_bug(char *b)
> {
> char buf[256], *p=buf+256;
> int x;
> for (x=0;x<1024;++x) *p-- = *b++;
> }
>
> expand-up stacks are not secure either.
I suspect that this kind of bug is three or four orders of magnitude
less common than the traditional buffer overflow, though.
Kragen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html