| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:41:03 +0100 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:52:07PM +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > And this point is one of the highest security benefits in real world: |
| 5 |
> > one have non-standard binaries, not available in the wild. Most |
| 6 |
> > exploits will fail on such binaries even if vulnerability is still |
| 7 |
> > there. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> While excluding few security issues by compiling less code is possible, |
| 10 |
> believing that "non-standard binaries" (in the sense of "compiled for |
| 11 |
> with local compilation flags") gives more security is a dangerous dream. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Any decent security setup contains multiple layers of protection. |
| 14 |
Use of non-standard binaries, algorithms or implementations is just |
| 15 |
one of them and it is the simplest math to prove that security is |
| 16 |
_improved_ this way. Nobody says that system became _acceptably_ |
| 17 |
secure _only_ by using this techniques. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Best regards, |
| 20 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives