User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

A hole in PaX

A hole in PaX

Posted Mar 18, 2005 21:05 UTC (Fri) by huaz (guest, #10168)
In reply to: A hole in PaX by PaXTeam
Parent article: A hole in PaX

> 3. for dang: you can't judge a person's maturity without knowing all the
> reasons for his decision, right? because it looks like you haven't
> bothered to read the advisory and therefore missed the "and other
> reasons" part.

I thought I would find what those "other reasons" are, but there aren't. It seems the advisory confirms that this bug WAS the reason that the author decided to abandon it.

Does it mean that the author realized the PaX design was fundamentally flawed in the current kernel, anyway?


(Log in to post comments)

A hole in PaX

Posted Mar 26, 2005 23:09 UTC (Sat) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

the other reasons are private matter, if they weren't, they would be public knowledge. as for the "PaX design was fundamentally flawed in the current kernel", what are you talking about? to my knowledge, there're no design errors in PaX, only implementation ones. if you know otherwise, you know where to contact me or let the world know (if for no other reason than to make things better).


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds