Insecure hardware (was Re: gets(3) nonsense)

[Daniel R. Levy]

In article <14733 at mimsy.UUCP>, chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> I will, however, note that any number of local changes might have
> moved the address `wwww' far enough to foil the attack.  One could
> argue that, perhaps, each process should have a different view of its
> own address space.  It would certainly be easy enough to have the
> c startup code move the stack down by a pseudo-random amount....

Couldn't this cause problems in using a debugger?  With the stack location
differing from invocation to invocation, pointer values which refer to stack
locations would also differ between otherwise identical runs of a program.

-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY
| Bell Labs Area 61 (R.I.P., TTY)|  AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T.
|        Skokie, Illinois        | 
|-----Path:  att!ttbcad!levy-----|