|Dealing with load/store instructions on static tainted flow analysis email@example.com (Gabriel Quadros) (2011-06-06)|
|Re: Dealing with load/store instructions on static tainted flow analys firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-06-07)|
|Re: Dealing with load/store instructions on static tainted flow analys email@example.com (2011-06-08)|
|Re: Dealing with load/store instructions on static tainted flow analys firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2011-06-09)|
|Re: Dealing with load/store instructions on static tainted flow analys email@example.com (Martin Ward) (2011-06-12)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:04:08 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|Posted-Date:||11 Jun 2011 13:50:41 EDT|
Gabriel Quadros <email@example.com> wrote:
> I am trying to implement a pass to detect information leak in
> programs. The problem is a variation of static tainted-flow analysis:
> I have some source functions, sink functions and sanitizers. I want to
> know if it is possible for data to flow from source to sink without
> going across a sanitizer.
> In particular, if you could point me some paper that does it,
> that would be great.
It isn't exactly the same, but I would start looking at the Java
Well, for one Java requires bounds checking, so you can be sure
that only references to the same array would leak. Java also
requires the verifier to detect references that load/store the
wrong data type, such as treating a double as two ints.
(I believe it detects both stack and heap accesses.)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.