Talk:Return-oriented programming

Unnamed section #1
An early example: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2000-05/0085.html 72.235.236.112 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed section #2
The kBouncer section needs an edit. The original kBouncer paper that was submitted to the Microsoft BlueHat competition did have a weakness in that it couldn't handle Jump-Oriented Programming. A more recent version of the system can actually detect JOP by looking for gadgets tied together with indirect branches. See the USENIX 2013 paper for details (https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity13/technical-sessions/paper/pappas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.1.247 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

About KBouncer
KBouncer isn't heavy, it's the most light one it use the LBR stack to detect the gadgets before a Windows API call — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.4.171 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Until the late 1990s, major operating systems did not offer any protection against these attacks; Microsoft Windows provided no buffer-overrun protections until 2004.
Begs the questions "Which major operating systems offered protection against buffer overrun attacks in the late 1990s?" and "What methods were used", and "What is a MAJOR operating system?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to merge this with Return to libc attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return-to-libc_attack

Return to libc attack is a specific usage of return oriented programming attack that doesnt have too many specifics to be a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetranoir (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice history!
Thank you author(s) for sharing this nice history on ROP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintubrass (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Function Level ASLR
Should we include a section about function level ASLR like: https://github.com/immunant/selfrando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgowdy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So... it has a name
so, using the stack to control the logic of a program has a name, but it is a valid programming technique especially when programming without RAM on some 8bit computers, it isn't only for breaching security. 120.21.9.209 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"The rise of 64-bit x86 processors brought with it a change to the subroutine calling convention that required the first argument to a function to be passed in a register instead of on the stack."
This does not seem a complete thought; if it is supposed to be one, it is not true. Instead, I think that this needs some sort of context to make it true, though I cannot image what it might be. 128.186.121.11 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)