This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Buffer Overflow Attacks
- To: fw at deneb dot enyo dot de
- Subject: Re: Buffer Overflow Attacks
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:20:16 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: eager at mvista dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
> To: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
> Cc: eager@mvista.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk
> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:23:54 +0100
> So I have to retract my original claim that it was impossible to do
> buffer overflow checks in such cases. After all, a pointer in
> C-speak (or "address", as in "address-of operator") is not very
> similar to a machine address.
Off Topic: A pointer in C speak is exactly like a machine address.
Please show us C code that shows a difference. comp.lang.c is a
better place for these types of comments.