Re: Why no security support for binutils? What to do about it?
Am 01.01.20 um 10:29 schrieb Elmar Stellnberger:
> Am 01.01.20 um 03:14 schrieb Paul Wise:
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:47 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> BFD and binutils have not been designed to process untrusted data.
>>> Usually, this does not matter at all. For example, no security
>>> boundary is crossed when linking object files that have been just been
>>> compiled.
>> There are definitely situations where vulnerabilities in binutils
>> (mostly objdump) are important and a security boundary could be
>> crossed, for example; running lintian on ftp-master,
>> malware reverse engineering
>
> Up to now I did not see any notable effort to support malware
> reverse engineering under Linux. The only program I knew was boomerang
> for decompiling malware but it seems to be unsupported since long. I
> would really be in need of such software since I have plenty of images
> of rootkitted installations and tampered BIOS images (f.i. one does
> not boot via USB and does not allow BIOS updates; you can not get rid
> of it unless you flash the BIOS chip of you mainboard externally).
>
Maybe ultimately one needs monitors and diff-machines built in hardware
(and more or less by oneself).
If compilers can be subverted, so can assemblers.
If intelligence is everywhere, so is intel.
If controlling people is everywhere, so is manipulation.
If exercising power goes beyond oneself, so does one's own corruption.
The only real solution is in one's own efforts to love, and thus to
become one with The One.
Those who think they are already there are just blind for what is beyond
their perception.
>
>> and inspection of binaries for hardening features.
>
Reply to: