Evil code
#2
Tell me, Linux enthisiasts, how does this reflect the "Linux is safer" mantra that I hear oh so often? How could Linux be so safe if the default configuration allows programs to execute data, and thus is very prone to buffer over-/underflow attack vectors?

On Windows, the original code doesn't work simply because the "code" for main is stored within the data segment, which is non-executable by default, thus making it safe. Why doesn't this happen on Linux, too?
Reply
Thanks given by: PCPlayerLV


Messages In This Thread
Evil code - by xoft - 02-10-2016, 12:09 AM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-10-2016, 12:21 AM
RE: Evil code - by LogicParrot - 02-10-2016, 12:37 AM
RE: Evil code - by Barracuda72 - 02-11-2016, 11:55 PM
RE: Evil code - by Schwertspize - 02-10-2016, 12:54 AM
RE: Evil code - by tonibm19 - 02-11-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: Evil code - by tigerw - 02-11-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Evil code - by DrMasik - 02-11-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-11-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: Evil code - by sphinxc0re - 02-11-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-11-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-12-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: Evil code - by Barracuda72 - 02-12-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: Evil code - by LogicParrot - 02-12-2016, 05:21 AM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-12-2016, 06:44 PM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-12-2016, 06:56 PM
RE: Evil code - by Barracuda72 - 02-12-2016, 10:14 PM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-12-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: Evil code - by xoft - 02-12-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: Evil code - by LogicParrot - 02-12-2016, 11:30 PM



Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)