From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id E4cvLCI+OGRR6SoAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:38:42 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9B2311E221; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=g+RqgIdU; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251121E110 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810B5385773C for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:38:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 810B5385773C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1681407520; bh=Fs6DfN5PY1dzfxUOzpaXPoRltLzpYFELldalhDZsQVw=; h=Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=g+RqgIdUZFkos2O/M+nyYz+xMDahKp7Cj+tIFbAHh1L6dED3GTncxVskVeH/Q+kns Y4BbM5RSf6YBTYGl4wDuO+3Ob7FnQlyYgKAtURx3+lJ6EYpge7dvBHkUYcin2dGlxG bolOm6lqe7uTl6JyMAXxShuZ5nfciIYSCnEVIQfU= Received: from resqmta-c1p-023465.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-c1p-023465.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fd00:56::5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625153858005 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:38:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 625153858005 Received: from resomta-c1p-023265.sys.comcast.net ([96.102.18.226]) by resqmta-c1p-023465.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id n0V1pl52X0bDpn0tWpBnzh; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:38:02 +0000 Received: from smtpclient.apple ([73.60.223.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 256/256 bits) (Client did not present a certificate) by resomta-c1p-023265.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id n0tTp4dgnYkwGn0tUppS0Q; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:38:01 +0000 X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekkedgudduiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgruhhlucfmohhnihhnghcuoehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekveelffeliefgiedufeehgeejtdfhgedujeehueekiedtgfetffevgffggfdvnecukfhppeejfedriedtrddvvdefrddutddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohepshhmthhptghlihgvnhhtrdgrphhplhgvpdhinhgvthepjeefrdeitddrvddvfedruddtuddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedprhgtphhtthhopehsihguughhvghshhesghhothhplhhtrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheprhhitghhrghrugdrvggrrhhnshhhrgifsehfohhsshdrrghrmhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehnihgtkhgtsehrvgguhhgrthdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegsihhnuhhtihhlshesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghgusgesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhg X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\)) Subject: Re: RFC: Adding a SECURITY.md document to the Binutils In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:37:59 -0400 Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Nick Clifton , Binutils , "gdb@sourceware.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2FDDD795-B713-41B8-A650-1CA06F027416@comcast.net> References: <1c38b926-e003-0e21-e7f1-3d5dbec2aabf@redhat.com> <5d044987-39eb-a060-1b2b-9d07b1515e7d@gotplt.org> <73bc480a-a927-2773-8756-50350f76dfbf@gotplt.org> <4ed86e65-0b7f-11d4-8061-2c5d0b1e147e@foss.arm.com> <7b6b10f8-e480-8efa-fbb8-4fc4bf2cf356@gotplt.org> <0224757b-6b17-f82d-c0bf-c36042489f5e@foss.arm.com> <01e846c0-c6bf-defe-0563-1ed6309b7038@gotplt.org> <2d4c7f13-8a35-3ce5-1f90-ce849a690e66@foss.arm.com> <01b8e177-abfd-549e-768f-1995cab5c81d@gotplt.org> <96e2ec59-11c6-329e-18c4-bf284eb752ac@gotplt.org> <1F7CF3D5-5AC3-4832-BE19-60F956A047F7@comcast.net> To: Siddhesh Poyarekar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.3) X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Paul Koning via Gdb Reply-To: Paul Koning Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > On Apr 13, 2023, at 1:29 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar = wrote: >=20 > On 2023-04-13 13:05, Paul Koning wrote: >>> On Apr 13, 2023, at 1:00 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar = wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 2023-04-13 12:49, Paul Koning wrote: >>>> If someone sends me an executable file, and I execute it and suffer = a virus, shame on me. If someone sends me a C source file and I compile = and link that BUT DO NOT EXECUTE the resulting executable, and I suffer = a virus, shame on the tool. >>>=20 >>> If someone sends me a C source file and I compile and link it = without inspecting it first, then definitely shame on me again. = Compilers and linkers assume *trusted* input. >> That's news to me. >> It is true that not all text is valid C, and some text has = "undefined" behavior. But "undefined" is a property of the resulting = executable program, NOT of the act of compiling it. I have never before = seen anyone suggest that submitting a bad program to a compiler could = reasonably be expected to result in that compiler attacking the security = of your system, or that if it did so it wouldn't be a security bug in = that compiler. >=20 > I haven't seen anyone suggest (and have seen many balk at) the idea of = crashes/buffer overruns in compilers being considered security issues.=20= Not all buffer overruns cause security issues. Those that crash the = program with the buffer overrun are not security issues (unless you're = considering the category of Denial of Service attacks). But a buffer = overrun that enables the execution of arbitrary code IS a security = issue. Who do you know to "balk at" that principle? This is no different from how one analyzes buffer overruns in networking = applications. If the consequence of the error is nothing worse than an = abort of that application, it's DoS and would typically not be = considered serious. If it allows code to be inserted and executed in = the context of the application, then that is serious and is a security = defect. The same goes for any other application whose specification = says that it processes -- but does not execute -- its inputs. paul