Hi,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:07:33AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> - For chapter 5: We'll have quite good mitigation techniques in Etch; namely
> address space randomization in the kernel and safe builtins in GCC 4.1.
Can you elaborate on that? Will the whole archive be built with gcc 4.1,
and will that version be _required_ for new uploads? Surely, if some
developer builds a package on his own machine with an older gcc and
uploads that, we don't have extra protection, right?
I had a quick glance at some new features of gcc 4.1 recently.
There's SSP for stack protection (might be older already) and
mudflap for pointer use checking...
Basically you have to compile a program with -fstack-protector and
-fmudflap, and link with -lssp and -lmudflap to be able to profit from
this. I think one of them will throw warnings at compile-time, the other
at run-time (I forget)...
Does anybody have some more experience with this? Is it feasible to
compile the whole archive with both libs in order to have a more
safe Debian system? How? For ./configure && make && make install
installs it might be reasonably easy, other build systems need manual
editing of Makefiles etc., I'm afraid.
Even if it cannot or should not be done in the official archive, we
might consider doing that for a local archive mirror for auditing
purposes.
Alas, it seems that mudflap throws lots of false positives, I get _tons_
of warnings for several programs in coreutils for example. That surely
doesn't mean all of those are vulnerable, so (most of) those must be
false positives - and we need a way to differ between those and the
real issues somehow...
Uwe.
--
Uwe Hermann
http://www.hermann-uwe.de
http://www.it-services-uh.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org
http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________
Debian-audit mailing list
Debian-audit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://shellcode.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-audit
|
| 
