[reitanqild]

> But attackers have already invented new techniques for circumventing ASLR, such as return-to-plt, GOT overwrite or GOT dereferencing. Again making it more inconvenient for script kiddies to write exploits, but again no problem for an attacker who can throw lots of money and people at the problem.

Helmets and bulletproof vests is no match for powerful rifles.

I'm a bit tired of this reasoning here on HN: If it isn't perfect it is worthless.

I think I can see reasons why a vendor might want to avoid ASLR in safety critical systems.

But we shouldn't talk down decent protection tecniques that will often save us.

[wolfgke]

> I'm a bit tired of this reasoning here on HN: If it isn't perfect it is worthless.

This argument (that "If it isn't perfect it is worthless" does not hold) is suitable for many topics in life, but in my opinion not for IT security. I can conceive that this might be one reason, why so many people (explicitly including politicians) make such bad decisions about IT security.

I might be somewhat paranoid regarding this topic (which is not a bad trait if you want to work in this area), but let me give my arguments:

First: the fight for secure systems is deeply asymmetric. The attacker side just needs one working exploit, while the defender side has to ensure that there exists no security hole. This strong asymmetry really makes it necessary that the security is as perfect as possible.

Second: if the device is connected to the internet, everyone/every device that exists in the world can be an attacker. So what you are fighting against is the whole world. Or in other words: the security of the system that you use has to withstand the smartness of some of the smartest people in the world.

Let it be stated clearly that this fight is not hopeless as it looks based on these arguments: for designing the security of your system, you can resort to the knowledge of many really, really smart people, too: this is what the various standards (e.g. for cryptography) are about. What you cannot afford is to tolerate the slightest bit of imperfection in the security architecture of the system.

TLDR: In security, at least "If it isn't at least nearly perfect, it is worthless" does indeed hold.

[saagarjha]

Cryptography isn't perfect; someone could always guess your private key. But that doesn't make it useless, since you're hoping that it's just sufficiently improbable that nobody in their right mind will even try doing it.

[wolfgke]

> Cryptography isn't perfect; someone could always guess your private key.

For the accepted standards, even the smartest people working in this area have not yet found a method to find the private key sufficiently fast (at least such a method has not been published). So to the best of our current knowledge, those methods are at least very near to the perfection that is possible with our current technology.

[cdcfa78156ae5]

> Cryptography isn't perfect; someone could always guess your private key.

Cryptography is a branch of mathematics, and cryptographic systems can be formally proved to have certain properties, such as being unable to derive the private key from the content of the encrypted message. That the private key can be guessed is a trivial observation, and a bad argument for dismissing formal proofs. ASLR is a hack on a hack that does not tell you anything about the formal properties of the system.

[wolfgke]

> Cryptography is a branch of mathematics, and cryptographic systems can be formally proved to have certain properties, such as being unable to derive the private key from the content of the encrypted message.

A small correction: All those proofs (if they exist) are relative to complexity-theoretical conjectures that are (ideally) widely believed to be true, but open. The only system that I am aware of where an "absolute" security proof exists is OTP, but this is hardly suitable to use in practice.