2 ms·
Some people are really against writable executable pages for security reasons. Eg. 20 years ago executable stacks were common, and people like OpenBSD and other
by asveikau 7y ago
Some people are really against writable executable pages for security reasons. Eg. 20 years ago executable stacks were common, and people like OpenBSD and others made a stink about removing it. The W^X mitigations.
More recently, Apple got really strongly into the "no executable writeable pages" stance, banning JITs from the app store and a bunch of other somewhat unreasonable stuff that is really about not letting apps download code without going through an Apple reviewer, rather than a practical security concern. Since that time there seem to be mildly dubious or cargo cult hate for writable code in some circles, who insist it's legit security practices and not a walled garden enforcement mechanism.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y agoThis is kernel space. If you have a way to overwrite arbitrary kernel memory all bets are off, even with no modifiable code. Apple's policies are dictated by commercial reasons, not technical, so not much to discuss there.
- asveikau 7y agoYes. But people rush into a kneejerk defense of superego (Apple is right all the time) and think that rewriting code pages is universally evil. And to be fair it is tricky and slow.