Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-11 Thread Mika Bostrom
[Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.] On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-11 Thread Mika Bostrom
[Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.] On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that

Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread David Weinehall
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > the bigger problem is however that you're

Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the > > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not

Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct > approach/mindset. i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying problem" can be solved. (in

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct approach/mindset. i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that the underlying problem can be solved. (in a

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-10 Thread David Weinehall
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the

Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-08 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > This, on the face of it, seems like a ridiculous possibility as the > chances of that are reverse proportional to the number of bits necessary > to implement the simplest Turing

Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/pax-future.txt > >To understand the future direction of PaX, let's summarize what we >achieve currently. The goal is to prevent/detect exploiting of >software bugs that allow arbitrary read/write access to

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/pax-future.txt To understand the future direction of PaX, let's summarize what we achieve currently. The goal is to prevent/detect exploiting of software bugs that allow arbitrary read/write access to the

Re: the Turing Attack (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

2005-02-08 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By author:Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel This, on the face of it, seems like a ridiculous possibility as the chances of that are reverse proportional to the number of bits necessary to implement the simplest Turing Machine.