On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Dan Aloni wrote:
> >
> > It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
> > executable (in i386, at least).
> >
> > On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
> > as root, when the stack is smashed as a
Dan Aloni wrote:
>
> It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
> executable (in i386, at least).
>
> On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
> as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a buffer overflow bug in
> various server
It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
executable (in i386, at least).
On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a buffer overflow bug in
various server software.
This preliminary,
It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
executable (in i386, at least).
On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a buffer overflow bug in
various server software.
This preliminary,
Dan Aloni wrote:
It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
executable (in i386, at least).
On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a buffer overflow bug in
various server
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Brian Gerst wrote:
Dan Aloni wrote:
It is known that most remote exploits use the fact that stacks are
executable (in i386, at least).
On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a
6 matches
Mail list logo
