Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security FullDisclosure
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Full-Disclosure] "Advances in Security" in the Linux Kernel and Red

Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] "Advances in Security" in the Linux Kernel and RedHat idiocy
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:21:45 -0500
I think the joke is on you in this case. There is a large patch series of
which you judge the first steps only. Those steps introduce the
infrastructure and concepts into the kernel, and later patches will tweak
the exact numbers to values with more entropy. ONCE THEY EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE IS ACCEPTED AND DEBUGGED.

Maybe you don't understand that, I assume a lot of the other readers of this
list do. You don't plop a huge patch in the linux kernel in one chunk. You
do it in nice small, incremental and debuggable steps.

If Exec-shield is any model for what you plan to turn this into, my 
comments still apply.  If you like, I'll simply send out the same email 
months from now when you "finalize" this patch into the level of 
security you claim it to be able to provide (which will never happen, 
since you won't be providing any bruteforce deterrence, so it doesn't 
matter if you increase the randomization by a couple more bits).

I should also add that the stack randomization present in this patch and 
that in exec-shield can be bypassed by tossing enough data into the 
stack, like "/bin/sh" over and over, since the amount of randomization 
is smaller than the stack itself.  I should also note that the latest 
output of paxtest I could find against exec-shield shows that the amount 
of randomization for shared libraries is the same as in the patch you 
sent to LKML.  So if your argument is that you agree these values are 
stupidly low, you're not saying much about your own "enterprise-grade" 
software ;)

I would also like to correct a mistake in my previous mail.  The glibc 
issues are indeed fixed in the latest FC3 glibc, which was released on 
December 27th, 2004, nearly 3 1/2 months  after the bug was initially 
reported.  The glibc update was not released as a security update 
however, so many users are still affected (like the two Fedora 
developers I contacted).

-Brad

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>