4 ms·
>and a whole class of possible security flaws just GoAway™. Technically not true, they don't go away, they're just harder(and not that much harder) to exploit.
by eugeneionesco 11y ago
>and a whole class of possible security flaws just GoAway™.
Technically not true, they don't go away, they're just harder(and not that much harder) to exploit.
- Dylan16807 11y agoI think you're using overly vague classes if you can't point to classes of attack that are flat-out blocked.
- brandmeyer 11y agoIt changes a broad class of attack exploits to require return-oriented programming techniques to exploit. Are you seriously claiming that ROP isn't "that much harder" than injecting arbitrary code?
- jcranmer 11y agolibc by itself provides a Turing-complete set of ROP gadgets: <http://www.cs.ncsu.edu/faculty/jiang/pubs/RAID11.pdf> http://www.cs.ncsu.edu/faculty/jiang/pubs/RAID11.pdf>.
- halosghost 11y agoFirst of all: thanks! I'm excited to read this! Second of all: ugh! Dear HackerNews team, please fix your URL matching algorithm so it doesn't include <> in URLs; they're actually explicitly recommended by the URI RFC as delimiters. Sincerely, halosghost
- rockdoe 11y agoHere's the original paper of this attack (AFAIK): http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~hovav/dist/geometry.pdf http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~hovav/dist/geometry.pdf The other paper shows that this technique is Turing complete. But yes, basically W^X is defeated.
- eugeneionesco 11y ago>Are you seriously claiming that ROP isn't "that much harder" than injecting arbitrary code? Yes I am.