Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security}

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From	Terrence Enger <tenger@iseries-guru.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security}
Date	Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:29:55 -0400
Organization	Compilers Central
Lines	19
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<14-03-041@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<14-03-015@comp.compilers> <14-03-016@comp.compilers>
Reply-To	tenger@iseries-guru.com
NNTP-Posting-Host	news.iecc.com
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	miucha.iecc.com 1394893043 22319 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (15 Mar 2014 14:17:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:17:23 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords	code, comment
Posted-Date	15 Mar 2014 10:17:22 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:1163

Show key headers only | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote (with blank lines snipped to keep
the email-filter happy):
> On 2014-03-07, Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are used to separation of code from data at the language level.
[snip Kaz's response]
> > However, two features disupt security :
> > i) self-modifying code
> > i.e. writing to code space
> Note that loading an executable on any operating system constitutes
> the above.

I believe that the IBM system/i is an exception to that general rule.
Only the operating system can write to the code space of a program
object.  This *does* contribute to the security of the system.
[Burroughs mainframes have done that since the 1960s.  I wouldn't put
too much faith in the security implications though; I once saw a demo
of hacking computerized voting machines even though all of the code
was in ROM.  They constructed a stack with pointers to bits of
routines that could be exploited, and then just did a return. -John]

Thread

Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com> - 2014-03-07 21:34 +0530
  Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-03-09 20:36 +0000
    Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} Terrence Enger <tenger@iseries-guru.com> - 2014-03-15 09:29 -0400
  Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2014-03-14 14:15 +0000
  Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} seimarao@gmail.com - 2014-03-20 00:42 -0700
    Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} federation2005@netzero.com - 2014-04-13 12:41 -0700
      Re: Self-modifying code, Function pointers & { Safety, Security} Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2014-04-16 09:18 -0400

csiph-web