Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Wants LLVM To Mainline x32 ABI Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    32-bit pointers are insecure because of inefficient Address space layout randomization (ASLR).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JS987 View Post
      32-bit pointers are insecure because of inefficient Address space layout randomization (ASLR).
      1. ASLR is just makes attacks harder.
      2. Attacker can reduce searching to virtual memory size. (so ASLR is more efficient with 64-bit pointers, only if you have more than 2^32 virtual memory)
      Last edited by LightBit; 01-24-2013, 08:11 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
        1. ASLR is just makes attacks harder.
        2. Attacker can reduce searching to virtual memory size. (so ASLR is more efficient with 64-bit pointers, only if you have more than 2^32 virtual memory)
        I have 2^45 virtual memory according to /proc/meminfo
        According to http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/papers/asrandom.pdf 64-bit is more secure because of more bits of randomization.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
          I have 2^45 virtual memory according to /proc/meminfo
          If I understand correctly x32 is more for low memory devices.


          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
          According to http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/papers/asrandom.pdf 64-bit is more secure because of more bits of randomization.
          Shall we use 128-bit pointers just to prevent brute force attack?
          40-bit (64-bit) can be brute forced quite fast.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LightBit View Post
            Shall we use 128-bit pointers just to prevent brute force attack?
            40-bit (64-bit) can be brute forced quite fast.
            Brute force attack isn't always possible and can be detected.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JS987 View Post
              Brute force attack isn't always possible and can be detected.
              Why it can't be detected on 32-bit?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Why it can't be detected on 32-bit?
                It is maybe also possible to detect it on 32-bit, but on 64-bit attack would last much longer, which means much higher probability of detection.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                  It is maybe also possible to detect it on 32-bit, but on 64-bit attack would last much longer, which means much higher probability of detection.
                  This slides says 2m11s is needed on 64-bit

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    This slides says 2m11s is needed on 64-bit
                    Function get_random_int is different in latest kernels. Slides claim that it worked only for local attacker.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X