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

[Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>]

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  :)

-- 

 / jakob