public inbox for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, gnu-gcc@gnu.org
Subject: Defending against buffer overflows.
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:21:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12502.950912447@monkeys.com> (raw)

My attention has just been called to:

   http://immunix.org/StackGuard/mechanism.html

Given all of the buffer overrun vulnerabilities that have been found in
various network daemons over time, this seems like a worthwhile sort of
technique to apply when compiling, in particular, network daemons and/or
servers.

I don't entirely agree with this fellow's approach however.  I think that
the ``canary'' word should be located at the bottom end of the current
stack frame, i.e. in a place where no buffer overrun could possibly clobber
it.

Seems to me that this would be a nice and useful little enhancement for gcc.
I wouldn't mind having something like a -fbuffer-overrun-checks option for
gcc, and I would definitely use it when compiling network daemons.

Anybody else got an opinion?

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID

From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, gnu-gcc@gnu.org
Subject: Defending against buffer overflows.
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12502.950912447@monkeys.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20000401000000.IeexFH-zBW14_Mo4BgvqZekZUYhhub2ypHdVWm_0U0w@z> (raw)

My attention has just been called to:

   http://immunix.org/StackGuard/mechanism.html

Given all of the buffer overrun vulnerabilities that have been found in
various network daemons over time, this seems like a worthwhile sort of
technique to apply when compiling, in particular, network daemons and/or
servers.

I don't entirely agree with this fellow's approach however.  I think that
the ``canary'' word should be located at the bottom end of the current
stack frame, i.e. in a place where no buffer overrun could possibly clobber
it.

Seems to me that this would be a nice and useful little enhancement for gcc.
I wouldn't mind having something like a -fbuffer-overrun-checks option for
gcc, and I would definitely use it when compiling network daemons.

Anybody else got an opinion?

             reply	other threads:[~2000-02-18 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-02-18 14:21 Ronald F. Guilmette [this message]
2000-02-21  7:24 ` Bill C Riemers
2000-04-01  0:00   ` Bill C Riemers
2000-04-01  0:00 ` Ronald F. Guilmette

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=12502.950912447@monkeys.com \
    --to=rfg@monkeys.com \
    --cc=freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org \
    --cc=gnu-gcc@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).