| |||||||||||||
Non-exec stack is betterNon-exec stack is betterPosted Mar 19, 2005 5:25 UTC (Sat) by Han (guest, #28614)In reply to: Non-exec stack is better by BrucePerens Parent article: Address space randomization in 2.6
http://www.bsdatwork.com/2003/08/13/essence_of_openbsd/
ORN: Two AMD Hammer (x86-64) boxes have been donated to the project so that OpenBSD will support this architecture. What are your thoughts about this processor? Is it better from a security standpoint than x86 (non-executable pages of memory, etc.)?
drahn: The Hammer implementation is much nicer in that it has a per-page execute bit; this allows W^X support with no special tricks. Other than this and a >32-bit address space, the machine is basically just a standard PC. OK, I have to admit that at the current time the fastest processors available are PCs (x86 based).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||