Talk:W^X
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this article contains some hogwash. It implies that this protection is for the stack. No, this protection is supposed to apply to *all pages of the application*. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.185.136.4 (talk • contribs) .
Theo de Raadt is hardly the *author* of OpenBSD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.152.49.34 (talk • contribs) .
Actually de Raadt is not OpenBSD author, but project initiator and leader. Additionally, AFAIK, W^X is used by Microsoft Windows, since XP SP2 - 217.150.206.254 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, W^X is an OpenBSD thing. Microsoft's is called Data Execution Prevention. NicM 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
- Should W^X and Data Execution Prevention be merged? Traal 04:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- They are different implementations of similar things for different OSs (I'm not sure about how similar, I know DEP uses the NX bit which W^X doesn't, but I don't know how similar it is when the NX bit isn't available), so I don't really see that it is absolutely necessary. Both articles could just do with expansion, particularly Data Execution Prevention. I don't strongly object to a merge though, so long as it manages to avoid making out either that they are one and the same thing, or that W^X is a generic name, which it isn't. Hard to think of what is a generic name to merge them under though... Page protection already has another meaning, perhaps Non-executable page, or cleanup the horrible NX bit article and merge them both in there. NicM 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC).
This page states that W^X is not implemented on AMD64 processors, due to complexity issues, but the page on NX bit says it is implemented. Whose right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.222.171.11 (talk • contribs) .
