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

David Weinehall
2005-02-10T20:03:45Z

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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 ;) ]

Yeah, sex is *usually* a much more pleasant experience than having your
machine broken into, even if it results in a pregnancy. =)

Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/