| S. Cesare, \Linux Anti-debugging Techniques (Fooling the Debugger)", Jan. 1999, http://www.uebi.net/silvio/linux-anti-debugging.txt, accessed 29 Dec. 2003. |
....by software guards is another technique to prevent tampering [20] Software guards are security modules that implement di#erent tasks of a program and thus eliminate single points of failure. In addition a program can implement antidebugging techniques in order to prevent tampering with a debugger [19]. Anti debugging inserts instructions into a program or changes properties in order to confuse a debugger. For example a program can arbitrarily set break points or misalign code. Furthermore, virtual software processors are are a technique for making tampering di#cult [12] Virtual software ....
S. Cesare. Linux anti-debugging techniques. Security Focus, Jan. 1999.
....used by Janus for interposition in Linux, has a variety of limitations that make it a poor choice of mechanism for application sandboxing, and other security sensitive applications. Additional discussion of the limitations of ptrace in the presence of hostile applications is offered in Cesare [7]. There have been attempts to overcome the limitations associated with ptrace through the creative use of other standard Unix mechanisms; their results have been lackluster. Subterfugue [1] provides a means of overcoming the problem of argument races (see Section 4.3.3) with standard Unix ....
S. Cesare. Linux anti-debugging techniques. http://www.big.net.au/silvio/ linux-anti-debugging.txt, January 1999.
No context found.
S. Cesare, \Linux Anti-debugging Techniques (Fooling the Debugger)", Jan. 1999, http://www.uebi.net/silvio/linux-anti-debugging.txt, accessed 29 Dec. 2003.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC