This Post was deleted by the Post author.
This Post was deleted by the Post author.
This Post was deleted by the Post author.
no defeats were demonstrated. willfully running a documented insecure config is malice at best, not a defeat. and that still had nothing to do with neither PaX nor RAP per se.
1
Not an insecure config at all, isn't core_pattern __read_only? :) If you say it doesn't have to do with PaX, then it has to do with PaX/grsec.
1
core_pattern isn't read-only under PaX, nor does RAP have anything to do with data-only attacks. on the other hand you yourself admit that following the very explicit advice on grsec_lock prevents your 'attack'.
2
Isn't KERNEXEC was a PaX feature? ;) You know all too well that RAP is useless if code-injection is possible (it completely eliminates its purpose). Guess what? I also clearly mention this if you've missed it (which turned out to be true of course):
2
But hey, if the security of your system is based on people not having access to it to inspect it, suit yourself
1
based on your incompetence and outright childish behaviour you're not on the list of people i'd ever trust or even ask to evaluate anything remotely related to security.
1
You'd never ask anyone because that's exactly what *you* want.
1
and how would you know who we have asked to look at our code? :) hint: there're people (much) smarter than you who have.

Dec 5, 2019 · 1:27 PM UTC

1
Congrats to them for being so smart that they didn't notice basic security problems on your code.