Archives
Archives
| From: | pageexec@××××××××.hu | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-hardened@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-hardened] Tin Hat 20090519 is out! | ||
| Date: | Mon, 25 May 2009 10:29:18 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4A1A7308.8544.41B4790@pageexec.freemail.hu | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-hardened] Tin Hat 20090519 is out! by basile |
||
| 1 | On 22 May 2009 at 13:32, basile wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > Paxtest doesn't cover everything, but it covers important checks and if |
| 4 | > any fail there is definitely reason for concern. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | just a sidenote, the ssp tests in paxtest were written to FAIL, not to |
| 7 | succeed, since pax doesn't prevent overflows per se. if you want to assert |
| 8 | the effectiveness of a particular ssp implementation, you'll have to write |
| 9 | much more extensive tests. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-hardened] Tin Hat 20090519 is out! | basile <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> |