Listen up "ciroKnight" you hopeless, mother-fucking retard.
You clearly know N O T H I N G about large-scale, enterprise computing, so please fuck off and die (painfully, slowly and quietly, if possible) please.
You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
A computer *WILL NOT* jump to an arbitrary memory address if the architecture prevents this - clearly you HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF any computer architectures other than over-inflated microprocessors/microcontrollers like the ix86.
Your whole rant is a pile of shit and you don't understand how compuers work.
No doubt the designers knew about hardware protection - but their project managemers considered it a low priority in the race to get the chip to market.
Probably a good call business-wise, but it leaves quite a legacy in it's wake, doesn't it.
Obviously you know nothing about CPU architecture. Like the designers of the x86 series, you think you have to invent the wheel from scratch, when so many better wheel-designers have already done the job for you.
An 'arbitrary jump' is fine inside your own address-space, so long as you jump to storage you own, AND you have requested, AND have the 'key' to, AND is marked 'executable' in your current key/ring.
Jeeze! The mainframe guys had this figured out decades ago.
Don't trust the coder first - trust the computer architect first!
Agree with you there C++, but this kind of sloppy design/coding would not be possible with a an architecture that implemented memory protection at the hardware level.
IBM mainframes were able to designate the usage of 'pages' or 'frames' of memory by using 4-bit 'storage keys' in the mid 1960s!
You requested the storage in a specific key (in your own address space) and any program accessing that storage with a different key. The ability to change storage key was strictly controlled by OS privilleges and any program violating that rule would immediately die with a 'storage protection' exception.
The guys at Intel in the late 1970s didn't consider things like that - if they ever knew about them - as they were mostly IC designers, not proper computer architects.
I think the Motorola 68000 series was following in the footsteps of the IBM S/3x0 mainframe CPU architecture but never quite got there.
Sadly the CPU architecture in question does not distinguish between data memory and intruction memory, so it's possible to overwrite a return address on the stack (let's say) and have the CPU fetch the next instruction from some arbitrary memory location. If a data file is loaded into the working address space, then it's fair game for executing.
Not so much an MS problem as an x86 problem IMHO.
"the snort rule will peg the CPU on your router"
on
Trustworthy Computing
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
In most of the Western World, almost everyone has a cellphone. The only 'coolness' to be had is from the style/brand/features/color/smallness of the phone.
Even my dad has a cellphone and he's 78!
He hangs around the old folks home saying to himself "hey! look how cool I am dude!".
Clue: cellphones are actually very useful if you have any friends, family, a job or something.
Well, to be fair, what you say is true of London and other major cities in the UK, and any of the tourist 'honeypot' destinations. Poor service, poor standards, poor value because they don't have to make an effort.
If you get off the beaten track a bit, market forces begin to operate and hotels and B&Bs need to compete, ergo standards are infinately better.
I don't think it's right to say that Britain is a 'dirty island' - I have enjoyed some great times there. You just have to know where to avoid I guess - just like any other place.
The 'winner' is a piece of amatuerish crap of the worst kind.
Try and sell GIMP to any serious graphic designer with an image like that and they'll laugh in your face - and when they've finished laughing, they'll either punch you in the face or wallop you with their handbag.
Much as I like the idea of putting some of my old junk to good use as storage and print servers etc. It makes no economic sense at all. You can buy new computers, standalone network drives, network printer interfaces etc. for very little these days.
Frankly, I'd rather just dump the old hardware. The HDDs are probably about to burn out, the PSU is likely on it's last legs. The CPU is probably suffering from gradual heat-death. IMHO it's a false economy.
Ok - so it was an $900 computer 5 years ago - but you could replace it with a better $300 computer now.
Stretching old hardware beyond it's natural lifespan has got to be bad news.
>>Actually, GOTO is my last name and does not mean "go to." (Nor is it pronounced "go to"; the correct pronunciation of my name is more like "goat-toe.")
Good God! How many of you slashbot jerks even bother to sniff the article before launching into a tirade about structured programming etc.
It seems that the current UK government can find a 'silver lining' to almost every story - however negatively it reflects on their incompetence, arrogance and cronyism.
e.g.
Drunkeness arrest rates at an all time high! - THIS IS GOOD - because police are being more effective at arresting drunks.
Overall crime rates are massively up - THIS IS GOOD - because while VIOLENT CRIME and MURDER is way up, PETTY CRIME is declining. As there are many more petty crimes than violent ones (or murders), this is a clear win for the government and we'll adjust the stats accordingly - hurrah!
Doublethink? I'm only sorry that Eric Athur Blair (no relation) didn't live to see his pessimistic worldview vindicated.
It's not a leader for any technological or performance advantage, that's for sure.
I guess it's because it's ubiquitous in the industry, because of all those 'Genghis Khan' salesmen (thus the old chestnut).
Oracle is not fast enough for VLDBs (see CCA's Model 204 for ultimate speed) and is not particularly feature-rich (see IBM's DB2 for all-round features).
Oracle muddles along in the mid/nearly-large DBMS mainstream, which I guess is where most sales are, so it's well positioned in it's market I guess - but a technological/performance leader? No way.
I don't think Chinese people expect the sort of combative, probing, in-your-face interviewing techniques that the best of the BBC journalists employ.
IMO, most BBC journalists really do the job - i.e. asking questions of the 'high and mighty' as well as the 'man in the street' that the viewers/listners would like to ask themselves, and not taking waffle and bullshit for an answer.
I'd love to see the BBC's Jeremy Paxman interview George Bush, for example - nah! never going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's nothing to do with 'Virtual Machines' on an IBM mainframe, or even an AS/400.
When you request a chunk of storage, you request it in a particular 'key', or else it defaults to the key of the data space of your own address space.
An arbitrary program cannot request memory in another key unless it has specific privillages (dependent on secure rules in the OS security subsystem).
The ownership of the chunk of storage is determined by your address space and the storage key.
I constantly amazes me that younger IT professionals seem to have learned nothing from the past.
Listen up "ciroKnight" you hopeless, mother-fucking retard.
You clearly know N O T H I N G about large-scale, enterprise computing, so please fuck off and die (painfully, slowly and quietly, if possible) please.
Get ye gone!
Ok, thanks for playing.
You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
A computer *WILL NOT* jump to an arbitrary memory address if the architecture prevents this - clearly you HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF any computer architectures other than over-inflated microprocessors/microcontrollers like the ix86.
Your whole rant is a pile of shit and you don't understand how compuers work.
Sorry pal!
Yes,
No doubt the designers knew about hardware protection - but their project managemers considered it a low priority in the race to get the chip to market.
Probably a good call business-wise, but it leaves quite a legacy in it's wake, doesn't it.
Obviously you know nothing about CPU architecture. Like the designers of the x86 series, you think you have to invent the wheel from scratch, when so many better wheel-designers have already done the job for you.
An 'arbitrary jump' is fine inside your own address-space, so long as you jump to storage you own, AND you have requested, AND have the 'key' to, AND is marked 'executable' in your current key/ring.
Jeeze! The mainframe guys had this figured out decades ago.
Don't trust the coder first - trust the computer architect first!
Yes, you are correct.
This exploit could have been prevented by good design, but it wasn't.
My point was that good CPU architectures should be made so that you can't set the instruction pointer to some arbitrary, untrusted address.
You are correct Godfathr!
I think that upholds my point that instruction and data spaces should not be shared in any decent CPU architecture.
Agree with you there C++, but this kind of sloppy design/coding would not be possible with a an architecture that implemented memory protection at the hardware level.
IBM mainframes were able to designate the usage of 'pages' or 'frames' of memory by using 4-bit 'storage keys' in the mid 1960s!
You requested the storage in a specific key (in your own address space) and any program accessing that storage with a different key. The ability to change storage key was strictly controlled by OS privilleges and any program violating that rule would immediately die with a 'storage protection' exception.
The guys at Intel in the late 1970s didn't consider things like that - if they ever knew about them - as they were mostly IC designers, not proper computer architects.
I think the Motorola 68000 series was following in the footsteps of the IBM S/3x0 mainframe CPU architecture but never quite got there.
Sadly the CPU architecture in question does not distinguish between data memory and intruction memory, so it's possible to overwrite a return address on the stack (let's say) and have the CPU fetch the next instruction from some arbitrary memory location. If a data file is loaded into the working address space, then it's fair game for executing.
Not so much an MS problem as an x86 problem IMHO.
What?
Could someone elucidate please?
Why can't they just stick to vinyl?
Beats me why so many people seem to keen to build wind farms.
Surely, there is too much wind in the world already (witness recent events) and farming more of the damn stuff seems like utter lunacy to me.
Anyhow, couldn't we just import some foreign wind from some windy place?
So, where do you live exactly?
In most of the Western World, almost everyone has a cellphone. The only 'coolness' to be had is from the style/brand/features/color/smallness of the phone.
Even my dad has a cellphone and he's 78!
He hangs around the old folks home saying to himself "hey! look how cool I am dude!".
Clue: cellphones are actually very useful if you have any friends, family, a job or something.
Well, to be fair, what you say is true of London and other major cities in the UK, and any of the tourist 'honeypot' destinations. Poor service, poor standards, poor value because they don't have to make an effort.
If you get off the beaten track a bit, market forces begin to operate and hotels and B&Bs need to compete, ergo standards are infinately better.
I don't think it's right to say that Britain is a 'dirty island' - I have enjoyed some great times there. You just have to know where to avoid I guess - just like any other place.
GIMP is what happens when...
A bunch of geeks think they know something about graphic design and decide to make a program that will fullfill graphics designers' needs.
It's butt ugly, non-functional, un-intuative, mega-slow, feature-poor and generally crappy.
Flame away slash(b|d)otters, but I mean it, really.
GIMP is teh sucks!
The 'winner' is a piece of amatuerish crap of the worst kind.
:|
Try and sell GIMP to any serious graphic designer with an image like that and they'll laugh in your face - and when they've finished laughing, they'll either punch you in the face or wallop you with their handbag.
This image is the winner?
I'd love to see what the losers liked like
>> Yes, animates.
...
;)
No!
To be grammatically correct, that statement means "the GIMP Logo animates *me* {or something else}".
The VERB to "animate"
I animate
You animate
He animates
She animates
We animate
They animate
The correct usage would be "the GIMP logo IS ANIMATED".
Fucking illiterates!
No it isn't right you moron.
Oh brilliant!
Where was the 'flamebait' in that comment?
Idiot mods strike again.
Much as I like the idea of putting some of my old junk to good use as storage and print servers etc. It makes no economic sense at all. You can buy new computers, standalone network drives, network printer interfaces etc. for very little these days.
Frankly, I'd rather just dump the old hardware. The HDDs are probably about to burn out, the PSU is likely on it's last legs. The CPU is probably suffering from gradual heat-death. IMHO it's a false economy.
Ok - so it was an $900 computer 5 years ago - but you could replace it with a better $300 computer now.
Stretching old hardware beyond it's natural lifespan has got to be bad news.
Uhhh - yeah, right.
Forgive me if I suggest you stay firmly within YOUR box, pal.
Read TFA and dig a bit, then you will see...
>>Actually, GOTO is my last name and does not mean "go to." (Nor is it pronounced "go to"; the correct pronunciation of my name is more like "goat-toe.")
Good God! How many of you slashbot jerks even bother to sniff the article before launching into a tirade about structured programming etc.
Dumb asses, the bunch of you!
It seems that the current UK government can find a 'silver lining' to almost every story - however negatively it reflects on their incompetence, arrogance and cronyism.
e.g.
Drunkeness arrest rates at an all time high! - THIS IS GOOD - because police are being more effective at arresting drunks.
Overall crime rates are massively up - THIS IS GOOD - because while VIOLENT CRIME and MURDER is way up, PETTY CRIME is declining. As there are many more petty crimes than violent ones (or murders), this is a clear win for the government and we'll adjust the stats accordingly - hurrah!
Doublethink? I'm only sorry that Eric Athur Blair (no relation) didn't live to see his pessimistic worldview vindicated.
God save the Queen!
>>BUT the database is very much a leader.
A leader in sales revenues perhaps.
It's not a leader for any technological or performance advantage, that's for sure.
I guess it's because it's ubiquitous in the industry, because of all those 'Genghis Khan' salesmen (thus the old chestnut).
Oracle is not fast enough for VLDBs (see CCA's Model 204 for ultimate speed) and is not particularly feature-rich (see IBM's DB2 for all-round features).
Oracle muddles along in the mid/nearly-large DBMS mainstream, which I guess is where most sales are, so it's well positioned in it's market I guess - but a technological/performance leader? No way.
I don't think Chinese people expect the sort of combative, probing, in-your-face interviewing techniques that the best of the BBC journalists employ.
IMO, most BBC journalists really do the job - i.e. asking questions of the 'high and mighty' as well as the 'man in the street' that the viewers/listners would like to ask themselves, and not taking waffle and bullshit for an answer.
I'd love to see the BBC's Jeremy Paxman interview George Bush, for example - nah! never going to happen.