|'No Execute' Flag Waves Off Buffer Attacks - NX-enabled.|
Particular combinations of processor etc,=No Execute Flag and stops hack.
| 1:39 am on Feb 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Pair up the right processor with an SP2 edition of Windows XP (Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 3 and SuSE Linux 9.2 also offer NX), and your system should run just as it did before in daily use. We have yet to see any programs break on an NX-enabled machine. |
Cool. But, how much would all that cost?
| 2:08 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No idea. Can't even get to the link as it requires a subscription / registration. And, it involves giving not just my name and email address but a whole host of other information about my job/position/responsibilities etc that would take more time to fill in than it took to write this post. Also, there's a four page legal "User Agreement" to read ... something I just didn't have the stomach for.
The Washington Post can feel free to read this post without registering here.
The specs you quote above can be had for circa $1,000.
| 2:41 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't post 'need to register' links and this was a viable link when I did post it.
Oddly enough, Google News no longer shows the information at all. To me, this was a helluva story.
[infoworld.com...] discussed the buffer overflow as it was expected to be back in October '04.
|A new feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2 aims to put a stop to buffer overrun exploits, with the help of major chip vendors |
There are not too many current references that do not point to the washingtonpost. What kinda deal is that?!?
I've learned my lesson about the washingtonpost. They must leave the stories open for just a short time, before they switch it over to registration.
| 3:42 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as an attack on you. I was just frustrated at the WP. Now even more so as they changed the accessibility of the story.
From my understanding very few of the Athlon chips support this (or the intel ones for that matter). It would help if they expanded on this a bit but yes, a much better article at infoworld :)
[edited by: oddsod at 3:45 pm (utc) on Feb. 28, 2005]
| 3:44 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, no. We're cool. :)
Just disappointed in washingtonpost and the lack of other resources available, which kinda channels everyone to them and their ads.