-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
| Hi John,
|
| El vie, 17-09-2004 a las 19:04, John Richard Moser escribió:
|
|-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|Hash: SHA1
|
|
|
|Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
|| Hi,
||
|
|[...]
|
[...]
|I prefer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
[...]
Good, at least you understand that :)
|
|Yes and then the program halts and gets SIGABRT. Do you not know what a
|DoS attack is?
|
|[...]
|
|
| Duty of Shame ?
| OK, leaving the Fun Mode off...
| (here,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have completed an in-house test of a PaX demonstration. The demo
includes the PaX patch; a patch I made to suppliment PaX with boot-time
selection of NX mode; a script `pax-flags` to mark binaries with
chpax/paxctl and execstack (to turn the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've got a chunk of data that can be used for a demo setup over here. I
would like the help of any debian developers that would like to package
up a set of kernels and the scripts that come with this and place them
in a mini-repository, to give the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This post is also being forwarded to debian-kernel, as it contains the
appropriate kernel settings. This is a continuation of the message from
the debian-security and debian-devel lists, archived at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andres Salomon wrote:
| On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:57:29 -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
| I'm interested in discussing the viability of PaX on Debian. I'd like
| to discuss the changes to the base system that would be made, the costs
| in terms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andres Salomon wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 14:37 -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|Hash: SHA1
|
|
|
|Andres Salomon wrote:
|| On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:57:29 -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
||
|
| [...]
|
|Did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'll do a recapitulation of what has been covered thusfar in this
message. It's a long one, but it'll get us all on the same channel.
John Richard Moser wrote:
| I'm interested in discussing the viability of PaX on Debian. I'd like
| to discuss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
GOTO Masanori wrote:
| At Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:38:37 -0400,
| John Richard Moser wrote:
|
[...]
|
|
| Is this VSYSCALL issue? I guess we can backport it without large
| obstacle, but I have no spare time within a few days to work this bug
| because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm interested in discussing the viability of PaX on Debian. I'd like
to discuss the changes to the base system that would be made, the costs
in terms of overhead and compatibility, the gains in terms of security,
and the mutability (elimination) of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Kemp wrote:
| On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:57:29PM -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
|A PaX protected base would also benefit from Stack Smash Protection,
|which can be done via the gcc patch ProPolice.
|
|
| I have been flirting with SSP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hanasaki wrote:
| what is the relationship between PaX, grsecurity and trustees?
|
PaX is a separate project from grsecurity. The grsecurity developer
finds interest in PaX, and so supplies it with grsecurity.
Dunno about trustees.
| Will the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Kemp wrote:
| On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:26:15PM -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
|| I have been flirting with SSP for months now, but the most recent
|| patches included with GCC do not apply cleanly. Watch for a bug
|| against GCC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Kemp wrote:
[...]
|Firefox sets off SSP itself on load.
|
|
| When you say 'sets of' do you mean disable? I find that unlikely,
| as it's not the kind of thing that can be disabled when all the
| canary checking code is incorporated into
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
. . . .thunderbird is being weird. It's giving me where should be,
and wehre should be. EH.
Andres Salomon wrote:
| On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:57:29 -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
| I'm interested in discussing the viability of PaX on Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Coker wrote:
| On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:57, John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
|
|I'm interested in discussing the viability of PaX on Debian. I'd like
|to discuss the changes to the base system that would be made, the costs
|in terms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Coker wrote:
| On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:48, John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
|
|| Before we can even start thinking about PaX on Debian we need to find a
|| maintainer for the kernel patch who will package new versions of the
|| patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Found a problem.
Russell Coker wrote:
| On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:57, John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
|
| We have recently discussed this on at least one of the lists you
posted to.
| The end result of the discussion is that GCC
18 matches
Mail list logo
