Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: John Richard Moser <nigelenki@×××××××.net>
To: JHolder <trs-gml@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] OT: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 05:29:01
Message-Id: 41525FAD.30608@comcast.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] OT: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons by JHolder
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4
5
6 JHolder wrote:
7 | John Richard Moser said:
8 | [snip]
9 |
10 |>JHolder wrote:
11 |>| John Richard Moser said:
12 |>| [snip]
13 |>|
14 |>|>It's no secret that -fstack-protector-all breaks some programs that
15 |>|>- -fstack-protector doesn't (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla). In
16 |
17 | [snip]
18 |
19 |>|
20 |>| Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if using libsafe
21 |>| (http://www.research.avayalabs.com/project/libsafe/) would tend to break
22 |>| programs?
23 |>
24 |>According to http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/node5.html ,
25 |>libsafe has greater overhead.
26 |>
27 |
28 |
29 | Good answer. Embarrassingly enough, your answer sounds like you spent 30
30 | seconds with google. Something, which by all rights I should have done
31 | myself. But as I am supposed to be working right now ;-) I appreciate
32 | your time for doing the research on my odd musings.
33 |
34
35 I came accross this stuff a while back, I had 'em on hand.
36
37 Found 'em with google after 4 or 5 searches trying to determine how the
38 heck old SSP was.
39
40 | John
41 |
42 | --
43 | gentoo-security@g.o mailing list
44 |
45 |
46
47 - --
48 All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
49 Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
50
51 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
52 Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
53 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
54
55 iD8DBQFBUl+rhDd4aOud5P8RAqWwAJ9boVfdlXPLvOBwnJdeVBsuN97ysQCeIA8G
56 3SMVo/yU8JAvc66V3x9EhUs=
57 =3z4S
58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
59
60 --
61 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list