[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E3118B72-56E2-4D6D-9618-A8A4029469C9@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:39:07 +0100
From: John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: ekobrin <ekobrin@...mai.com>, "chet.ramey" <chet.ramey@...e.edu>,
solar <solar@...nwall.com>, lcamtuf <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>,
fweimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Healing the bash fork
On 29 Sep 2014, at 19:50, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...eeler.com> wrote:
> That said, a lot of people are looking to find other attack paths. Shellshock has pointed out
> a kind of attack path that most people hadn't examined before.
> I'd still like to see Christos Zoulas's approach included eventually, since that's an even stronger
> countermeasure. After all, if function imports only happen on request, then
> non-requesters will have no problem. But I also understand that Zoulas's approach
> is backwards-incompatible, and thus the bash folks are hesitant to apply it.
> If that can't be added now, perhaps it could be added in a next release of bash?
Normally I’d be all for maintaining backwards compatibility: we spend a lot of time fixing bugs in a way that doesn’t break anything. On this occasion, though, I think Christos Zoulos’s approach is both correct and needed.
jch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
