Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * pageexec@freemail.hu <pageexec@freemail.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
> > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct
> > > approach/mindset.
> > 
> > i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying
> > problem" can be solved. (in a deterministic fashion)
> 
> I know neither exec-shield nor PaX and therefore have no bias or
> preference - I thought I should chirp in on your comment here Ingo...
> 
> ...
> > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield
> > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental
> > end-result: a child will be born ;-)
> 
> Yes and no.  I would think that the chances of a child being born are
> greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month,
> compared to a first week pregnancy.
> 
> I assume you get my point  :)

the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_
that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-)

[ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ]

	Ingo