search for: abadi

...time overhead, I would implement control-flow integrity (CFI). As far as I understand, nearly all memory safety exploitation today is done by diverting control-flow(*); CFI prevents that and is faster than any other non-probabilistic mitigation in the literature. There's a paper on CFI by Abadi et. al. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1609956.1609960). However, I don't think we'd want to implement it in the same way they do; I'd recommend run-time checks on indirect function calls and a split-stack approach that allows checks on stores to just mask off bits in the point...

...t; implement control-flow integrity (CFI). As far as I understand, nearly > all memory safety exploitation today is done by diverting > control-flow(*); CFI prevents that and is faster than any other > non-probabilistic mitigation in the literature. > > There's a paper on CFI by Abadi et. al. > (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1609956.1609960). However, I don't > think we'd want to implement it in the same way they do; I'd recommend > run-time checks on indirect function calls and a split-stack approach > that allows checks on stores to just mask off b...

Hello! I need to compare 2 datasets whether they come from the same distribution. I use function ks.boot{Matching}. And what is the confidence level of the p-value, returned by ks.boot function? The code is: set=read.table("http://stella.sai.msu.ru:8080/~gala/data/testsets.csv", header=T,sep=',') set1=set[!is.na(set$set1),'set1']

Hi, I already have matched samples, which were matched using different software. I need to calculate Abadie-Imbens standard errors, together with the average treatment effect. I know that the Matching package enables me to calculate these after a Matching procedure, but is there any way to do it on already matched samples, which were not produce by the Match function? Many thanks, Louise. -- View thi...

Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some questions. > The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with > AddressSanitizer

I am trying to determine whether two samples are identical or not. I'm aware that somebody can use the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test to compare empirical distributions, but since my samples have ties I'm not sure if I'm getting the right p-values for the comparison. Can the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test be adjusted for the case when ties exists and are there any functions that already

To anyone who uses the Match() function in the Matching library... How do you go about deciding how many matches you will use? With my data, my standard errors generally get smaller if I use more matches. Speaking of standard errors, when correcting for heteroscedasticity, how many matches do you use (this is the Var.cal option). It seems to me that it might make sense to use the same number

Hi Nuno, I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some questions. The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with AddressSanitizer and SAFECode, so I am curious how would you compare the two existing tools with the new one. Earlier you wrote: >> So the main idea of this new flag is not for debugging, but rather for production. >> This means

Hi In my previous mail I mentioned the project on KCoFI( the control FLow integrity methods for commodity hardware http://sva.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/KCoFI-Oakland-2014.pdf ). Will it be more helpful to the community if I do the improvements number #1 and #3 mentioned in my previous mail to the mailing list or if i try to port it to arm architecture? I have decided to go ahead with the improvements