Re: "Buffer overflow" term considered overloaded

["Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" <davek_throwaway () hotmail com>]

Steven M. Christey wrote:
> In "Re: IE ActiveX 0day?" to Bugtraq on September 18, Alexander
> Sotirov asked:
>
> > What is your definition of memory corruption? How can a buffer
> > overflow not be a memory corruption error?
>
> The term "buffer overflow" continues to be too general for the variety
> of issues out there.  Array index/offset errors, buffer "underflows,"
> out-of-bounds reads, frees of invalid pointers, length field
> inconsistencies, off-by-ones, insufficient memory allocation that is
> resultant from integer overflows, other kinds of incorrect size
> calculations, and other problems all involve memory access outside of
> expected boundaries, so they are called "buffer overflows."  But they
> are different than the "classic" overflows that strcpy() is known for.

  Indeed.  The distinction between "heap overflow" and "stack overflow" is 
far more information-bearing than the generic description "buffer overflow."

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....