The exec*() and system() calls need parameters, which need to follow the return address. Since the return address is necessarily the last part of the attack, it is not possible to write these parameters.
So unless spawn_shell(void) exists, the armoring is quite effective.
It seems you are right. However, since the return address can then only be the last byte(s) of the overwritten part of the stack, it is not possible to give parameters to the function called (these would follow the return address on the stack). The exec* and systems calls all need parameters.
So unless a function execute_shell(void) exists in the code, the armoring should be quite effective.
Why would AMD, Intel, IBM, HP, Sony, Philips, etc. benefit from a PC that will run only Windows? As hardware manufacturers, they would benefit from the OS's being a commodity. A good, free OS will decrease PC cost and therefore increase PC demand.
Your remark could be right if MS was the only company supporting the platform. Funny you name Lotus as an example. It is now owned by IBM, one of the supporters...
Your example is utter nonsense. If the most-run method of your application becomes a factor k slower, your application will at most become a factor k slower. Never k^2 or whatever.
It does not matter at all if this method is in a n, n^2, exp(n) or even exp(exp(n)) loop, since this relates to the size of the input problem. During the program, the method will be called some number of times (say x). If the method first cost u time, then after changing it, it wil cost (u*k) time. Calling it x times will take (u*k)*x = (u*x) * k time. So you are still slowed down by a factor k.
Now let's look at the problem size. If complexity is n^2, then doubling your problem size will increase execution time by a factor 4 (2^2). If the method is slower, and we double the problem size, execution time will still increase with a factor 4, since the complexity itself does not change. If we compare the two double-size problems, there is a factor k between them.
Don't try to bazzle us with mathematics if you can't handle them properly.
No such thing in the terms of my ISP (dutch). However, I noticed another interesting passage (article 4.4, freely translated):
"Customers are allowed to hack into the XS4ALL systems. The first customer to gain administrator rights gets a 6-month account for free. The requirement is that no damage is done, privacy of other customers is not broken, and that the full procedure is explained."
Now that's what I call a provider.
logical correlation
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The countries with the largest IT sector are, in general, the richest countries in the world. Piracy is, in general, performed by people who can't afford the CD/DVD/software. It follows logically that there is a correlation between the two statistics, although there is (IMHO) no causal relation at all.
This relates to the "piracy cost us $xxx,xxx,xxx zillion"-argument: it is not true. Most people pirating music/software would not have bought the product if couldn't pirate it.
If Microsoft spams the world from a single domain, wouldn't their IP addresses end up on every blacklist within no-time? Of course, for most of us users it's just
Factors influencing damages would be willfulness of the infringement and the presense or absense of commercial gain as a result of the infringement.
There's a dangerous point. As Linus and other kernel developers have no commercial interest, they loose nothing by someone illegally using their code. Could it be that a judge would rule in favor of the plaintiff, but award no damages (as no damage was done)?
[Linus] goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
The worst case scenario is that people browse their web site to get the technical specs and pricing, and then head down to their local retailer to actually buy it.
On the other hand, people may go to a retailer, be informed and then buy the computer slightly cheaper from the website. I used to advise people a strategy like that: go to an expensive store with knowledgeable personel, make a choice and then go over to the cheapest crap store and buy it.
After reading the article, I can't imagine that a home user would ever make a point of purchasing a system on the order described.
Unfortunately the home user won't read the article. He will read advertisement ads that promise him a computer that will make "Windows XP even more secure".
The home user bought Office 2000 because of the helpful little paperclip. He will buy this.
That code should then be the property of the government, just like when I hire someone to build a fence for me that fence is my property on completion.
Of course it is. But the source can still be open, just like anybody is allowed to know how exactly how your fence has been constructed. If you happen to want some fancy patented lock on your fence, you'll somehow pay royalties, even though it's still your fence.
The article mentions twice that paying royalties on patents would rule out Open Source, as Open Source developers couldn't afford them.
I don't agree with this: development has nothing to do with it. The royalties come into play when the software is used, so the government might have to pay up. That's ok, it will still cost them less than MS licensing.
The source can still be open, but using it will oblige you to pay royalties. A lot of you will complain about this, but the goals of using Open Source within the government are (or should be):
everybody can see what happens within the software, no back doors etc.
when the government pays developers to create code, everybody can learn from it and reuse it (just pay royalties upon using certain parts), so everybody can profit and development will be cheaper in the end
In the end, everything's better than all the money going to a single company.
Re:But it makes the firewall illegal, no?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished
Nope, it would be the other way around. MS can do anything it wants to your computer, just by piggybacking it within some security update. Then it will be up to you to seek justice in court and to prove that EULA is illegal.
Use passwords to secure access to a system. Use security guards to secure the system itself
or
encrypt data with a session key. Encrypt the session key to multiple public keys, like GPG does. If you really trust only one person, split another keys into multiple parts and hand to multiple persons that you trust marginally.
Slashdot Mirror
So unless spawn_shell(void) exists, the armoring is quite effective.
So unless a function execute_shell(void) exists in the code, the armoring should be quite effective.
Your remark could be right if MS was the only company supporting the platform. Funny you name Lotus as an example. It is now owned by IBM, one of the supporters...
Yes, it can be much more efficient: let's just take some memory, put the string into it, and end with a 0. That's safe enough, right? Right? :-)
It does not matter at all if this method is in a n, n^2, exp(n) or even exp(exp(n)) loop, since this relates to the size of the input problem. During the program, the method will be called some number of times (say x). If the method first cost u time, then after changing it, it wil cost (u*k) time. Calling it x times will take (u*k)*x = (u*x) * k time. So you are still slowed down by a factor k.
Now let's look at the problem size. If complexity is n^2, then doubling your problem size will increase execution time by a factor 4 (2^2). If the method is slower, and we double the problem size, execution time will still increase with a factor 4, since the complexity itself does not change. If we compare the two double-size problems, there is a factor k between them.
Don't try to bazzle us with mathematics if you can't handle them properly.
Now that's what I call a provider.
This relates to the "piracy cost us $xxx,xxx,xxx zillion"-argument: it is not true. Most people pirating music/software would not have bought the product if couldn't pirate it.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt
Everybody knows Michael Jordan doesn't have IT experience. He has been too busy playing basketbal.
* m0.net
/dev/null
Plugh and xyzzy are hardly passwords the average windows user would know, are they?
Nope. In fact is quite easy. Just do as 90% of small/middle market web designers do: use Frontpage.
If MS is not allowed to depend on new features in a new OS, it would hardly be worthwile to create new features, would it?
[Linus] goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
I downloaded the trial version. Now what do I do with this 170MB trial.exe???
# cp db.localhost db.doubleclick
# cat << EOF >> named.conf
> zone "doubleclick.net" {
> notify no;
> type master;
> file "/etc/bind/db.doubleclick";
> };
> EOF
On the other hand, people may go to a retailer, be informed and then buy the computer slightly cheaper from the website. I used to advise people a strategy like that: go to an expensive store with knowledgeable personel, make a choice and then go over to the cheapest crap store and buy it.
Unfortunately the home user won't read the article. He will read advertisement ads that promise him a computer that will make "Windows XP even more secure".
The home user bought Office 2000 because of the helpful little paperclip. He will buy this.
Of course it is. But the source can still be open, just like anybody is allowed to know how exactly how your fence has been constructed. If you happen to want some fancy patented lock on your fence, you'll somehow pay royalties, even though it's still your fence.
I don't agree with this: development has nothing to do with it. The royalties come into play when the software is used, so the government might have to pay up. That's ok, it will still cost them less than MS licensing.
The source can still be open, but using it will oblige you to pay royalties. A lot of you will complain about this, but the goals of using Open Source within the government are (or should be):
In the end, everything's better than all the money going to a single company.
It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished
Nope, it would be the other way around. MS can do anything it wants to your computer, just by piggybacking it within some security update. Then it will be up to you to seek justice in court and to prove that EULA is illegal.For shift.com the dark age has already begun... ./ effect
use this link to request sourceforge removal directly
and
use this to list microsoft.com as hate speech site
Use passwords to secure access to a system. Use security guards to secure the system itself
or
encrypt data with a session key. Encrypt the session key to multiple public keys, like GPG does. If you really trust only one person, split another keys into multiple parts and hand to multiple persons that you trust marginally.