Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Buffer overflow prevention

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:31:24 +0200, Peter Busser <peter@trusteddebian.org>  said:

> And another is that performance is more important than security in the Linux
> world. Even though most servers and desktops are more than 90% idle and CPU
> cycles have never been so cheap. Still, it seems that none of this wealth
> should be spent to improve security somewhat.

I'd like to know where you get the funding to have all your servers at 90% idle.

Most of us have servers where 90% busy is the normal condition.

Other than that, Peter is pretty much on target - although I'm not sure if the RedHat
issue with "NIH" patches is really that, or a question of intrusive code in the kernel
(I'd have to look at both patches - the RedHat one was pretty intrusive, but looked
like low-overhead at run time once the gcc and ld hooks were incorporated to handle
auto-flagging of trampolines...)

PGP signature