Re: Exec-Shield vs. PaX
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:15:06PM +0100, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote:
| > I suspect we both agree that it's desirable to have thread stacks
| > non-executable as well.
|
| on one hand you acknowledge that it's better to have non-exec thread
| stacks but on the other hand you argued that
|
| > it's not a bugfix to break apps that rely on an executable stack - the
| > stack _is_ executable.
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| as they say, you can't have it both ways.
He's saying that there's no reason to have an executable stack for
programs which never attempt to execute code on the stack---and having a
non-executable stack in such circumstances gives you a security
advantage---but it is not okay for the operating system to break those
programs which /do/ rely on the stack being executable.
Now could you please stop wasting everybody's time by continuing this
thread? Ingo has already stated that he won't continue arguing with
you, and I don't intend to continue posting in this thread after this
message either.
Cameron.
Reply to: