| 1 |
It's would be feasible to include Grsec RAP gcc plugin in gentoo hardened? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I think it would be a better alternative than fcf-protection does |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On 24/02/19 16:16, "Tóth Attila" wrote: |
| 7 |
> Dear Guillaume, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm not a Gentoo Dev either. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If there's a place to promote useful gcc flags from their security aspect, |
| 12 |
> Gentoo Hardened is a good place to become a leader of such efforts - like |
| 13 |
> it happened in the past. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 1. Regarding fcf-protection: |
| 16 |
> "Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based on |
| 17 |
> Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET)." |
| 18 |
> - anybody knows which Intel processor actually supports that since its |
| 19 |
> announcement in 2016? |
| 20 |
> - also it worth to take a look at on these comments by Spender @ grsecurity: |
| 21 |
> https://grsecurity.net/effectiveness_of_intel_cet_against_code_reuse_attacks.php |
| 22 |
> It would be good if hardware developers would discuss their plans with |
| 23 |
> more security experts before they put something into production. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> 2. Regarding stack-clash |
| 26 |
> "Most targets do not fully support stack clash protection." |
| 27 |
> - some information would be helpful to elaborate a little bit more on "not |
| 28 |
> fully" and exactly which targets we are talking about. Anybody has a more |
| 29 |
> detailed documentation? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Best regards: |
| 32 |
> Dw. |
| 33 |
> |
Archives