Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Thread beginning with comment 354485
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-11
I read a number of comments, and found when talking about security, people are as blind to say one OS is secure as to say it is insecure.
One simply fact people ignore is that the hacker DID find bugs on ALL OSs, and CAN exploit the bugs on ALL OSs. When a hacker comes across an anti-exploit feature second time, it may take much less time to work it around than he/she met it the first time. And when the exploiting is done, the real attack takes the same 10 second for all OSs.
Working around an anti-exploit feature is a technique need to learn with effort, but once you master it, it does not necessarily to take the same effort each time of exploiting or each time of the attack.
When a hacker starts exploiting a bug, it is usually the whole world, including the OS vendor, does not know the bug existing. So a hacker exploiting OS bug, unlike decryption (because a password is valid only in a short period), unlike a thief (because the host will return soon), has plenty time. While to set up obstruction is an effective way in attack-defense game, it's very different in the bug-exploiting world, where time does much less matter.
I always think the anti-exploit features like randomization have their down-side, too. It complicates the debugger and the crash image. Well, if you think a debugger has way to deal with it, a hacker has a way, too, and the way is possible can be automated.
Leopard has library randomization, and it's alone the path to full-randomization. But I won't simply be sad because of its lack of this feature or cheer for it has the feature. Be calm for such thing.