similar to: security features

Hey All, [NOTE: crossposting between freebsd-current@, freebsd-security@, and freebsd-stable at . Please forgive me if crossposting is frowned upon.] Address Space Layout Randomization, or ASLR for short, is an exploit mitigation technology. It helps secure applications against low-level exploits. A popular secure implementation is known as PaX ASLR, which is a third-party patch for Linux. Our

Hey All, [NOTE: crossposting between freebsd-current@, freebsd-security@, and freebsd-stable at . Please forgive me if crossposting is frowned upon.] Address Space Layout Randomization, or ASLR for short, is an exploit mitigation technology. It helps secure applications against low-level exploits. A popular secure implementation is known as PaX ASLR, which is a third-party patch for Linux. Our

Hi list! I''m trying to run 2.4.29-xenU with grsec. Jacob Gorm Hansen said couple of weeks ago, that grsec should work with xen when pax is disabled.. Well, to get the kernel compiling there''s some source hacking that needs to be done.. I''ll describe what I did and what error I got: I downloaded xen-2.0-testing-src.tgz and extracted it. I edited the toplevel Makefile

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > > As for the patch, I really don't like > > 1. 3 different cases for 3 different flavors of MacOS. How are we > goring > > to support it? > The first is Leopard, which we don't want to support at all. Maybe we > should check that in some other place. > The second is

> As for the patch, I really don't like >   1. 3 different cases for 3 different flavors of MacOS. How are we goring > to support it? The first is Leopard, which we don't want to support at all. Maybe we should check that in some other place. The second is Snow Leopard, where ASLR is controlled by the DYLD_NO_PIE env var, which is read by the dynamic loader. The third is Lion,

Hello everybody For network simulation purposes I am trying to run a Linux image with a PAX enabled grsec kernel on a Gentoo xen-3.1.1 with HVM. While the image boots flawlessly on real hardware the kernel does not really like the fully virtualized Xen/Qemu environment. It does not succeed to boot (for dmesg see attachment). I first tried with the grsec- patched 2.6.14.6 sources but it

Options when creating a main executable -pie This makes a special kind of main executable that is position independent (PIE). On Mac OS X 10.5 and later, the OS the OS will load a PIE at a random address each time it is executed. You cannot create a PIE from .o files compiled with -mdy- namic-no-pic. That means the

Yes, we have no ASRL with -no_pie. Can we disable ASRL even with -pie? On linux we can do it with "setarch x86_64 -R". Another question: if asan would require -no_pie on Mac, will this be a serious limitation? Thanks, --kcc On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > Options when creating a main executable > -pie This

On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> Link time is of course better. >> But if there is a syscall (like the one used by setarch) we could call it >> and reexec. >> Using setenv("DYLD_NO_PIE")+reexec looks gross to me. > There's posix_spawnattr_setflags() that can do the job >

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > >> >> On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >> > Yes, we have no ASRL with -no_pie. >>

> Link time is of course better. > But if there is a syscall (like the one used by setarch) we could call it > and reexec. > Using setenv("DYLD_NO_PIE")+reexec looks gross to me. There's posix_spawnattr_setflags() that can do the job (http://reverse.put.as/2011/08/11/how-gdb-disables-aslr-in-mac-os-x-lion/), but the necessary flag appeared only in Lion. To the best of my

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) < > chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > >> Hi Rogelio, >> >> Glad to see MBlaze will not be removed. I suggest you put your name on >> CODE_OWNERS.TXT. ;) >> > > I think instead, it would be more

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Can you open a separate bug with exact repro instructions? Well the bug tracker seems to require an account. But in any case I don't see anything specific to reproduce. I did an svn update of llvm and clang and built and installed (I even tried make clean and removed the old install but it didn't

I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25 and I started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures. I tried testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked fine under the old but they generate the same errors now so it isn't any changes in llvm. There are two different errors: FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unsupported VMA range FATAL: Found 47 -

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Greg Stark <stark at mit.edu> wrote: > I get that even if I put -fPIE in CFLAGS. Er, yeah. Even a trivial test case doesn't work: $ cat foo.c int main(int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[]) { return 1; } $ clang -o foo -fsanitize=memory -fPIE -pie foo.c $ sysctl kernel.randomize_va_space kernel.randomize_va_space = 2 $ ./foo FATAL: Code

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:19:22PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:01:26PM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 07:43 -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 1:55 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > > > But,... do we still need this in the light of that fine-grained > > >

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:19:22PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:01:26PM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 07:43 -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 1:55 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > > > But,... do we still need this in the light of that fine-grained > > >

Hm, that bug has been closed as resolved but I still see the problem: $ clang --version clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 250848) (llvm/trunk 250846) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /usr/local/bin configure:4042: ./conftest FATAL: Code 0x5615faea43f0 is out of application range. Non-PIE build? FATAL: MemorySanitizer can not mmap the shadow memory. FATAL: Make sure to

+llvmdev Question to MacOS gurus: is there a way to disable ASLR (address space layout randomization) on Darwin at link time instead of doing setenv("DYLD_NO_PIE", "1", 1); and reexec? Thanks, --kcc On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > The attached patch introduces the disable_aslr option (off by default) > and the

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > Yes, we have no ASRL with -no_pie. > > Can we disable ASRL even with -pie? > > On linux we can do it with "setarch x86_64 -R". > > > > You asked about link time. Now it sounds like you're talking