Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th May 2012 15:20 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 518076
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
What about forbidding memory to be RWX, but allowing it to be either R-X or RW-, and letting software dynamically switch pages between both protection modes through system calls ?
This way, one both allows the existence of third-party JITs and still gets the full security benefits of DEP/NX. Forbidding the existence of self-modifying code is impossible anyway, since programs can always include a simple Turing-complete bytecode interpreter and read instructions from a data file in order to get the job done, even if it will be slow.
Edited 2012-05-14 19:10 UTC