Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion there are just too many potential problems with syscall
> wrappers that I fully agree with Robert - they should not be used.
I must fully agree here. I never liked systrace and bashed sysjail really
hard because the solution is at th
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Niels Provos wrote:
> There is a straight forward solution for this problem. The initial
> prototype of Systrace had a look-aside buffer in the kernel for
> copyin. I told Robert about this, not sure if he mentioned that in
> his paper or not. There obv
There is a straight forward solution for this problem. The initial
prototype of Systrace had a look-aside buffer in the kernel for
copyin. I told Robert about this, not sure if he mentioned that in
his paper or not. There obviously would be some associated
performance impacts.
Niels.
On 8/7/0
> I am using sysjail, so I am very interested how to mitigate attacks or
> is there anything OpenBSD could change to mitigate these issues?
Until the kernel wrapper issues have been addressed, the sysjail
page has been updated to indicate that it SHOULD NOT be used
(nor should any systrace(4) sys
In the First USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT07)
there was presentation
by Robert N. M. Watson:
"Exploiting Concurrency Vulnerabilities in System Call Wrappers"
with exploit code included how to bypass restrictions:
http://www.watson.org/~robert/2007woot/2007usenixwoot-exploit
5 matches
Mail list logo
