On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:49:46 +0100
"PaX Team" wrote:
> because it's a useless security measure. for a non-executable .rodata
> section to make any sense, the following condition would have to hold:
>
> a bug (or set of bugs) is exploitable if and only if .rodata is
> executable.
>
> nobody ha
On 29 Jan 2016 at 16:44, Alessandro Di Federico wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:49:46 +0100
> "PaX Team" wrote:
>
> > because it's a useless security measure. for a non-executable .rodata
> > section to make any sense, the following condition would have to hold:
> >
> > a bug (or set of bugs)
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:13:23 +0100
"PaX Team" wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2016 at 16:44, Alessandro Di Federico wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:49:46 +0100
> > "PaX Team" wrote:
> > > nobody has ever shown that there exists such a bug (or set of
> > > bugs) and in fact there's ample evidence that al
On 29 Jan 2016 at 20:23, Alessandro Di Federico wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:13:23 +0100
> "PaX Team" wrote:
>
> > On 29 Jan 2016 at 16:44, Alessandro Di Federico wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:49:46 +0100
> > > "PaX Team" wrote:
> > > > nobody has ever shown that there exists such
