From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SECURITY.txt: Drop "exploitable" in reference to hardening issues
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 16:32:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F6545133-3BE3-4A56-B858-E08F65E89C33@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc290b07-3ad2-4ba5-aa6f-32b7c4390828@gotplt.org>
> Am 09.01.2024 um 16:13 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>:
>
> On 2023-12-18 09:35, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> The "exploitable vulnerability" may lead to a misunderstanding that missed hardening issues are considered vulnerabilities, just that they're not exploitable. This is not true, since while hardening bugs may be security-relevant, the absence of hardening does not make a program any more vulnerable to exploits than without.
>> Drop the "exploitable" word to make it clear that missed hardening is not considered a vulnerability.
>
> Ping, may I commit this if there are no objections?
Go ahead.
Richard
> Thanks,
> Sid
>
>> diff --git a/SECURITY.txt b/SECURITY.txt
>> index b3e2bbfda90..126603d4c22 100644
>> --- a/SECURITY.txt
>> +++ b/SECURITY.txt
>> @@ -155,10 +155,10 @@ Security features implemented in GCC
>> GCC implements a number of security features that reduce the impact
>> of security issues in applications, such as -fstack-protector,
>> -fstack-clash-protection, _FORTIFY_SOURCE and so on. A failure of
>> - these features to function perfectly in all situations is not an
>> - exploitable vulnerability in itself since it does not affect the
>> - correctness of programs. Further, they're dependent on heuristics
>> - and may not always have full coverage for protection.
>> + these features to function perfectly in all situations is not a
>> + vulnerability in itself since it does not affect the correctness of
>> + programs. Further, they're dependent on heuristics and may not
>> + always have full coverage for protection.
>> Similarly, GCC may transform code in a way that the correctness of
>> the expressed algorithm is preserved, but supplementary properties
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-09 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-18 14:35 Siddhesh Poyarekar
2024-01-09 15:12 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2024-01-09 15:32 ` Richard Biener [this message]
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=F6545133-3BE3-4A56-B858-E08F65E89C33@gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=siddhesh@gotplt.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).