> From: Jason Coombs [mailto:jasonc@science.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:08 PM > A properly security-hardened binary DOES NOT require support > for arbitrary relocations, arbitrary dynamic library injection, > arbitrary code injection resulting in new execute paths defined at > run-time, and the type of programmability required by software > developers. Once code has been compiled and linked, even when that > code makes use of dynamic libraries, there is no longer any unknown. There are plenty of examples of programs and libraries that by design load and execute independently-developed code: browser plugins, ISAPI, and so forth. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this is a Good Thing, or whether it fits someone's definition of "a properly security-hardened binary", it's certainly a popular approach. The security community has not to date had much luck convincing users and programmers to adopt even its uncontroversial recommendations; I doubt you'll get any traction with this one. Michael Wojcik Principal Software Systems Developer, Micro Focus
