Jump to content

Talk:Buffer overflow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falcon Kirtaran (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 7 October 2016 (fixed link; GA nomination). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Former featured article candidateBuffer overflow is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Untitled

Archive: Archive 1

History vs history of malice

I added some early history of buffer overflows back, and reset the title from "History of malicious exploitation" to "History." I think it's important for an encyclopedia article to give a full history, not jump in mid-stream with how people are taking advantage of the class of issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emergentchaos (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Merge from Stack buffer overflow

Stack buffer overflow is a good article, but I think a lot of the content (esp diagrams) could be placed on this page instead, there is little which is specific to stack buffer overflows. -- Tompsci 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this information is specific to stack buffer overflows, the details of exploiting a buffer overflow are very different for a heap overflow vs a stack overflow for example...I for one would be opposed to such a merge... --Michael Lynn 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the buffer overflow article is about buffer overflows in general and all the concepts you discuss can be generalised to apply to the heap aswell, or apply already. I think some of the content which covers ground already covered by "Buffer Overflow", covers it better, especially where the diagrams are used, which are really clear and aesthetically pleasing. That's why I am suggesting a merge. Especially since the stack-based page is not wiki linked much. -- Tompsci 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be better to add or edit the content of buffer overflows article than to try to generalize buffer overflows with stack overflow content. the reason i say this is because the details of exploiting a stack buffer overflow are *completely* different from exploiting heap overflows. so much of the literature on this subject seperates the topics thats why I don't see it too bad to seperate them here. The way i think would be best would be to discuss the generalities of what people do with buffer overflows without respect to which kind they are and without going into the details of how they are exploited, and leaving the details of exploitation to the heap overflow and stack buffer overflow articles..that would leave the buffer overflow article to discuss the details of the impact of buffer overflow in general. You'll notice that I left most of the overall security ramifications out of the stack buffer overflows article because that seemed to fit in this article much better. I'm currently working on more diagrams for heap overflows, off by one exploits, and format string bugs, that would make them all look like they all go together better i think. --Michael Lynn 08:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes more sense to me now. But I think some of the material belongs in buffer overflow not stack buffer overflow and the stack buffer overflow material can be removed as I think your material is superior to what already exists. I'll make the relevant changes and if you disagree then we can maybe revert the changes. -- Tompsci 10:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sure thing, but do keep in mind that a little bit of duplication is not always a bad thing. --Michael Lynn 11:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.173.51 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are a lot of articles, where subthemes are represented as separated articles. Buffer overflow is the general type consiting of a set of subtypes. With such a success we can merge, for instance, Buffer overflow and Heap overflow articles.--91.76.20.6 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "deep packet inspection" section matter?

Deep packet inspection doesn't find modern buffer overflows. The technique has been of clearly limited value since Ptacek and Newsham's paper. Should that section go away?

1 question about the Code Red worm mentioned in this article...

In this article it's been written that the code red worm exploited a buffer overflow on IIS, but didn't it just exploit the web trasversal unicode bug? I mean, if so, no buffer overflows where used in that exploit, just unicode double encoding, that is pretty more simple... GET /scripts/%252e%252e/%252e%252e/%252e%252e/winnt/cmd.exe?/c+dir+c: HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: IIS.insecure.domain.com\r\n\r\n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.208.118 (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it would've beem extremely informative

giving the windows buffer's file names and some technical review. regards, 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Overwriting VMTs of heap allocated objects

The Heap Exploits section could mention this method. It's possible under some object layouts.

Rep movsd (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overreads?

The article appears to deal solely with buffer overwrites, yet overreads can be nasty bugs too. 119.225.239.230 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbleed bug isn't a buffer overflow as no adjacent memory is overwritten during its exploitation. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Dsimic is trying to say is that the term "buffer overflow" is generally only used to describe a specific type of out-of-bounds write. "Buffer overreads" would be a form of out-of-bounds reads, which one would not call a buffer overflow. However, I could not find an existing article about out-of-bounds reads of any form on Wikipedia. If you feel there is a need for one, you may want to start it. — SkyLined (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Regarding the coverage within Wikipedia articles, Bounds checking § Index checking section provides an overview, though it could be improved further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just created buffer overread redirected to buffer over-read, though which spelling is better I wouldn’t know. It is very much a stub, but includes, commented out, almost all of buffer overflow, so anyone is welcome to transform that and to discard what is irrelevant. I don’t intend to do anything more, apart from adding some links from other articles, in the next few hours, maybe not even the next few days, so anyone really is welcome. PJTraill (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buffer overflow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Buffer overflow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffer_overflow&oldid=743024597"