Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu) by vger.rutgers.edu via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:47:48 -0400 Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:46:53 -0400 Received: from chia.umiacs.umd.edu ([128.8.120.111]:46601 "EHLO chia.umiacs.umd.edu") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:45:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:11:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ADAM Sulmicki To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: [ot] machine independent protection from stack-smashing attack (fwd) Message-ID: X-WEB: http://www.eax.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Content-Length: 1171 Lines: 32 Not quite related to kernel development per see, but I though, nevertheless it would be of interest to many folks here. -- Adam http://www.eax.com The Supreme Headquarters of the 32 bit registers ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:59:49 +0900 From: Hiroaki Etoh To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM Subject: machine independent protection from stack-smashing attack I have been investigating a machine-independent change to GCC that would generate code to protect applications from stack-smashing attacks. The main characteristics are low performance overhead of the protection code, protecting against different varieties of stack-smashing attacks, and supporting various processors. A research report is ready on the web (http://www.trl.ibm.co.jp/projects/security/propolice). I would like some feedback whether it is worth pursuing getting it assigned to the FSF for inclusion in GCC. --- Hiroaki Etoh, Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM Japan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/