undefined | Better HN

0 pointslmm13y ago0 comments

It's normal, and necessary, for the operating system to provide access to standard library functions; the easiest way to do this is having them at well-known addresses. Admittedly windows could do address space randomization which would make the exploit harder, but it should still be possible even with that.

0 comments

josteink13y ago

Admittedly windows could do address space randomization which would make the exploit harder

According to Wikipedia, Windows provides one of the best ASLR on the market. I'm not sure why you are singling out Windows as a weak point here.

Windows has for a long time been the prime target of most exploits, and thus have spent considerable effort, on OS-level, to prevent the potential damage. OS X for instance, has almost none of the OS-level security features found in Windows and is a much easier target to exploit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomizat...

lloeki13y ago

> According to Wikipedia, Windows provides one of the best ASLR on the market.

According to the same page, ASLR is enabled only for Windows binaries who had the option set at compile/link time. Also I see no sign of your Wikipedia-attributed affirmation; the article even notes a number of deficiencies.

> OS X for instance, has almost none of the OS-level security features found in Windows

I don't know which precise security features you are talking about, but Mac OS X has been iteratively improving on that front: a limited form of ASLR (along with NX bit and W^X) was available since Leopard for 64-bit processes and was iteratively improved in Snow Leopard and Lion. Full parity was brought to 32-bit processes in Lion. Kernel and kexts are fully randomized in Mountain Lion. Also, as far as I know Windows does not enable NX/DEP for non-system processes by default, and does not implement W^X at all. This is a far cry from 'almost none'.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse