On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 21:38 +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > This case is covered by the new regress' backend_get_toofew and
> > backend_get_toomany tests. However, even with MALLOC_OPTIONS cranked
> > to the max it's really hard
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:36:25AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Index: sys/arch/m88k/m88k/trap.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/m88k/m88k/trap.c,v
> diff -u -p -u -r1.128 trap.c
> --- sys/arch/m88k/m88k/trap.c 2 Aug 2023
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Piece by piece, I've been trying to remove the easiest of the
> terminal-actions that exploit code uses (ie. getting to execve, or performing
> other system calls, etc).
> Snapshots for some architectures now contain kernel diffs which reject
> syscall(2). The symbol
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Piece by piece, I've been trying to remove the easiest of the
> terminal-actions that exploit code uses (ie. getting to execve, or performing
> other system calls, etc).
> So in this next step, I'm going to take away the ability to perform syscall #0
> (SYS_syscall), with
Piece by piece, I've been trying to remove the easiest of the
terminal-actions that exploit code uses (ie. getting to execve, or performing
other system calls, etc).
I recognize we can never completely remove all mechanisms they
use. However, I hope I am forcing attack coders into using
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:06:31PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> In the big ibuf API refactor I also broke the optparamlen handling
> by using one variable for two things.
>
> All the size handling in session_open() can be simplified since
> ibuf_size() is cheap to call.
>
> I think the result
In the big ibuf API refactor I also broke the optparamlen handling
by using one variable for two things.
All the size handling in session_open() can be simplified since
ibuf_size() is cheap to call.
I think the result is cleaner than the code before. It is still somewhat
funky because there are
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:27:11AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> While looking for something else I noticed this error.
>
> The holdtime is written into the buffer with ibuf_add_n16() so the htons()
> call is done in the ibuf add call. So there is no need for the htons()
> when assigning
While looking for something else I noticed this error.
The holdtime is written into the buffer with ibuf_add_n16() so the htons()
call is done in the ibuf add call. So there is no need for the htons()
when assigning holdtime.
--
:wq Claudio
Index: session.c
