3 ms·
I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here Maybe because his comment had the tone of: "For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the margin is too
by PhantomGremlin 10y ago
I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here
Maybe because his comment had the tone of:
"For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the margin is too small to contain it."
- tptacek 10y agoDo you need a "truly wonderful proof" for "the mainstream OS OpenBSD has not managed to render kernel vulnerabilities unexploitable, or to rid itself of those vulnerabilities entirely"? Because: that's an extraordinary claim for an OpenBSD supporter to make.
- PhantomGremlin 10y agoI was not responding to "the mainstream OS OpenBSD ...". Let's go back to your remark, which preceded his: kernel exploits for OpenBSD are neither theoretical nor impractical. You put that out there as a bare, standalone statement. No elaboration, no proof. Your comment might be true, but I would have liked to see some more "meat" in it. Some supporting evidence, some inkling of a truly wonderful proof.
- aortega 10y agoI did write a remote kernel exploit for OpenBSD, it was not an easy task, and this was in a time when there were basically no exploit countermeasures in kernel (2007) (https://www.coresecurity.com/content/open-bsd-advisorie https://www.coresecurity.com/content/open-bsd-advisorie) There are a bunch of local kernel exploits, all very practical and reliable. Kernel protections are something OpenBSD lacked until very recently.
- PhantomGremlin 10y agoYes, thanks for reminding me of that one. That timeline isn't pretty. The OpenBSD guys really needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to calling it a "security fix" rather than something milder like a "reliability fix".