Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Kernel Vulnerability Allows Local Root For Unprivileged Processes

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    no real code could have been written without unsafe blocks
    I have written two applications without unsafe blocks, why would a normal application ever need unsafe blocks?
    Are you arguing that no real code can be written in a garbage collected language as well then, because that is just
    another way to archive memory safety.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      I have written two applications without unsafe blocks, why would a normal application ever need unsafe blocks?
      well, helloworld is not real application

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pajn View Post
        Are you arguing that no real code can be written in a garbage collected language as well then, because that is just
        another way to archive memory safety.
        of course all real code which is "written in garbage collected language" is actually written in a mix of garbage collected and native languages. and memory safety is not the only kind of safety required. just look at crashes of java apps. btw, really real code has not enough of either memory or cpu cycles for garbage collector

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by yossarianuk View Post
          However the patch has already been released, you could get it now and patch yourself, distro's will have the update very soon.
          How much does this help. Think of the vast amount of vulnerabilities, that are still hidden within the kernel bug hive, waiting to be discovered and exploited. How many issues like this have already been discovered? There will be another one, and all this crap starts over again. And it is mostly stupid stuff like strcpy- or sprintf-overflows.

          Originally posted by yossarianuk View Post
          This is quite different to Windows where there are 16 yr old flaws in the all versions of Windows from XP onward that can NEVER be fixed...

          i.e

          http://blog.ensilo.com/atombombing-a...rity-solutions

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10...y_researchers/

          http://thehackernews.com/2016/10/cod...on-attack.html

          This cannot be fixed, its not a code issue its a design one, fixing the flaw would break pretty much all existing Windows applications.
          Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
          So it's official: winblows is broken by design.
          Great! Some wag points at some OS and yells. Thats the way Linux was made great?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            Honestly. If you care about security you should be using Linux. There are lot of gaming reasons to use Windows, but security is not one of them.
            fixed.
            If you care about security you should do this:
            Code:
            const char* myFunction(){
                char buffer[0];
                return gets(buffer);
            }

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nasyt View Post
              If you care about security you should do this:
              Code:
              const char* myFunction(){
              char buffer[0];
              return gets(buffer);
              }
              I'm sorry but I don't know what that does or how it is related.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                I'm sorry but I don't know what that does or how it is related.
                It's a function which allocates a zero-length character array on the stack, writes into it using a "get input from terminal" function which cannot be asked to limit the number of characters it'll read and then, if I'm reading the manpage correctly, returns a pointer to the stack frame that return discards. (A doubly-assured buffer overflow and a dangling pointer that'd look harmless and obvious to anyone used to a higher-level language.)

                ...and, if there's an error, it'll return a NULL pointer instead of a pointer to the given character array. (Forgetting to check for NULL pointers is another bug that's far too common in C.)

                It's the most comically compact and potent example of how easy it is to misuse memory that nasyt could think of.

                (EDIT: And I had to look that up because nobody with any sense uses gets(). As the manpage says, "It cannot be used safely (unless the program runs in an environment which restricts what can appear on stdin).")
                Last edited by ssokolow; 04 January 2017, 06:47 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  I'm sorry but I don't know what that does or how it is related.
                  Did you recognize the Sentence beginning with "If you care about security you" in your fixed quote?

                  Using Linux for security reasons despite Linux has obvious kernel bugs.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by nasyt View Post
                    Did you recognize the Sentence beginning with "If you care about security you" in your fixed quote?

                    Using Linux for security reasons despite Linux has obvious kernel bugs.
                    So, writing bad shit in C is now a kernel bug?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      So, writing bad shit in C is now a kernel bug?
                      No. It is a pun on the sentence "If you care about security you should be using Linux." which is like saying: "If you care about security, you should be using an OS with obvious security holes."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X