Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux Protection Against Buffer Overflow-based Vulnerabilities

  • Subject: Re: Linux Protection Against Buffer Overflow-based Vulnerabilities
  • From: "Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 3 Jan 2007 17:04:50 -0800
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <OSWmh.104093$Rg5.877158@weber.videotron.net>
  • Injection-info: s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.130.224.20; posting-account=I0FyeA0AAABAUAjJ9vi7laKRssUBoQA3
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <2466995.JSvd6KvJoe@schestowitz.com> <OSWmh.104093$Rg5.877158@weber.videotron.net>
  • User-agent: G2/1.0
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:475962
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:2466995.JSvd6KvJoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Protect Linux / UNIX application from buffer overflows
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | A Buffer overflows is a serious security problem. It allows an
> > | attacker to inject executable code of their choice into an
> > | already-running application. With such problems in mind, Berger
> > | created a new program that prevents crashing and makes users safer.
> > `----
> >
> > http://technocrat.net/d/2007/1/1/12815
>
>     When it was discovered that Vista offered a similar feature, this
> newsgroup ridiculed the approach, saying it would make software slower, and
> asked why didn't Microsoft just fix their broken software, instead of
> applying this "ugly hack".

Of course. When Microsoft did this it was laughed at by the Linux
pundits and this was nothing more a ugly hack. But now that Linux has
this it magically becomes a brilliant and essential feature and it
being portrayed as yet more Open Source "innovation."


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index