Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten?
From: avel () gmx ch
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:15:14 +0200 (MEST)
Although the context here is implied to be Linux on an x86 CPU, it's good to remember that there are other Unixoids that run on an x86 (the *BSD
and S
olaris/X86, right off the top of my head) which may have different linkage
conventions,
and that Linux runs on other processors that don't have a %edi register..
.> For all Unixoid boxes, 'uname -a' should be specific enough:
% uname -a Linux turing-police.cc.vt.edu 2.5.72-mm3-lsm1 #3 Sun Jun 22 13:10:38 EDT 2003 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Ok, here's my uname:
uname -a
FreeBSD xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 4.4-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE #0: Thu Jan 3 13:04:38 GMT 2002 root () bampe xxx de:/usr/src/sys/compile/bampe i386 thanks! -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
Current thread:
- exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? avel (Jun 23)
- Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 24)
- Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? avel (Jun 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? avel (Jun 24)
- Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? andrewg (Jun 25)
- Re: exploiting a binary if %edi can be overwritten? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 24)