If someone finds a vulnerability like buffer overflow in a program such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox running on a linux machine, are there any chances that this vulnerability will persist on ...
Watching this article: http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/13474/ I can see this: /* * NetBSD * execve() of /bin/sh by humble of Rhino9 */ char shellcode = "\xeb\x23" "\x5e" "\x8d\x1e" ...
It is often shown that non-executable data segemnts are possible to bypass through return-to-libc attacks. It's evident on /bin/sh but is it also possible to invoke a remote shell?
While discussing buffers overflows, somebody told me that compiling your own binary for an application (with specific compilation flags) instead of using the "mainstream binary" makes it more ...
Buffer overflows are nothing new. And yet they still appear often, especially in native (i.e. not managed) code... Part of the root cause, is usage of "unsafe" functions, including C++ staples ...
The students are skeptical that turning off non-executable stacks, turning off canaries and turning off ASLR represents a realistic environment. If PaX, DEP, W^X, etc., are effective at stopping ...
How effective is ASLR in preventing arbitrary code execution in a buffer overflow type exploit? How hard is it for an attacker to bypass this without simply guessing where the addresses are?
Does using many XML parsers (XDocument, XMLDocument) from the public Internet increase attack surface area?
I am coding an anonymous WCF service that allows others to post XML into it. Does using different kinds of XML parsers XDocument, XMLDocument, or even 3rd party parsers increase the attack surface ...