Being safe on the internet (was Re: Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?)

[Roland Perry]

In article <C6F343320DAC194BA010FD66AD4936233924AE at home.usermgmt.local>, 
David Biggins <David_Biggins at usermgmt.com> writes
>And that still doesn't solve the real problem, which remains in the
>millions of lines of code out there, in standard libraries and in the
>operating system, using the original version, and imposing the
>vulnerability on you, every time you call them...

Time to re-write the operating system then. As it's well past the 
classic version 3, how about getting this right in version 6? Failing 
that, version 7 :)

>> >The second was adoption by Intel of the "top down" hardware stack
>> >
>> Another naive question: Why not position the stack at the lower end of
>> the memory map, so that nothing can rise up and bite it?
>
>Ah - I see I haven't explained myself clearly enough.
>
>The problem is not something below the stack rising to bite it.  It's
>from something "newer" on the stack (i.e. low in memory) overflowing its
>reserved space on the stack to rise up and bite something "older" on the
>stack (i.e. higher in memory).

But if stacks grow downwards, how can a newer item rise upwards?
-- 
Roland Perry