Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:16:16 -0500 From: ari edelkind <edelkind-freebsd-hackers@episec.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: encrypted executables Message-ID: <20080221061616.GJ79355@episec.com> In-Reply-To: <20080221031856.GA17599@britannica.bec.de> References: <86068e730802181718s1ad50d3axeae0dde119ddcf92@mail.gmail.com> <47BA3334.4040707@andric.com> <86068e730802181954t52e4e05ay65e04c5f6de9b78a@mail.gmail.com> <20080219040912.GA14809@kobe.laptop> <f8e3d83f0802200451r463f188bn881268b9b2768846@mail.gmail.com> <47BCD34F.7010309@freebsd.org> <20080221023902.GI79355@episec.com> <20080221031856.GA17599@britannica.bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote: > What prevents me from patching the kernel (!) to just ignore the > resource limit? Nothing. Exactly! I mean, it won't help that much if you have pages that haven't been loaded or decrypted. But if you're patching the kernel anyway, you can always have it log the decrypted pages as they're loaded. There wasn't anything in my original e-mail that should make you think i was claiming you couldn't defeat binary encryption and protection measures (especially not the link that i included about defeating shiva). But naive simplistic methods are... just that. ari
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080221061616.GJ79355>