You have two permissions on the same memory allocation object. What one wins. The one that will allow access. Placing a kernel code in a exe resource then loading it from there(in places where the windows ABI stupidly allows it) Results in 1 shared block of memory between kernel space and userspace with 2 object permissions applied to the memory segment and the memory management unit will obey commands from both.

Yes this creates a rwx segment. In fact it creates a segment where you can crash windows by applying NX to the driver then triggering a function to enter the driver. This is basically not just a RWX segment of memory but a segment of memory where you have full control over what permission bits are applied from userspace even that its in kernel space.

That Exploit Guy its a complete different class of bug fairly much Windows unique.

‘That is not by Dan Rosenberg. That is a bug I reported to Microsoft with demonstration code. That is not fixed.’

Oh, really? Lemme guess – somehow you have also signed an NDA and handed over your demo code copyright even though you have had absolutely no reason or obligation to do so. Am I correct?

Also, you still don’t realise what’s giving you away there, do you?

So that author has nothing todo what what I was talking about.

That is not by Dan Rosenberg. That is a bug I reported to Microsoft with demonstration code. That is not fixed.

That Exploit Guy the so call offending comment is completely mine.

Sorry you would be the one expelled for this. This is not the only bug in WFP as well.

‘That Exploit Guy go back and read carefully Dan Rosenberg does he list the bits as R W NX ring. In the real registers there is no X bit. There is only a NX bit.’

This is your offending comment from not long ago:

‘When you push by WFP to kernel mode from a EXE resource. The problem is that EXE resource rw stats owns to the EXE. Basically WFP contains nice simple way to craft a rwx memory zone that you know exactly where it is since the application created it. This is a API/ABI design fault.’

Your feeble grasp of the subject matter aside, this is by far one of the most brazen attempts to plagiarise without understanding the source material and without acknowledging its author. I am sorry, but if you want the fastest way to get expelled from university, this is it.

‘You should have no problem finding the university appeals processes if you are so cleaver’

So with all that alleged study you have undertaken at university, you have absolutely no concept whatsoever of academic integrity. It is your responsibility, as the author your work, to provide a reference to other people’s works you have used in your writing. This is not about whether someone is being “cleaver” [sic] or not; it’s about honesty, which you are sorely lacking at this point.

Every university you go will tell you the exact same thing. There is no excuse.

You should have no problem finding the university appeals processes if you are so cleaver..

You will also find the auther of PaX blog uses like me. X bit does not exist. Since all memory starts executable before being turned NX. There is direct evidence that you claim of me copying Dan Rosenberg is crap.

‘Get most of the Australian University appeal processes…’

Nope, no sample there. Why am I not surprised?

So no you cannot appeal a automatically marked failed and you were not using the software listed for the course. Because not using the approved software is a fail anyhow.

That Exploit Guy In fact I did not copy Dan Rosenberg at all on kernel protection. Before you mentioned him I had never seen his blog.

The female author of PaX blog I have read even attended her conference presentations. Really I think Dan Rosenberg mostly rewrites PaX. Since finer details are missing. We both look simpler because we are from the same source material.

That Exploit Guy you have just accused me of coping someone I have not copied. Author of PaX that might have been a different matter.

That Exploit Guy using the same source material is not plagiarism.

You are a idiot human who cannot spot plagiarism because if what I did was plagiarism so is what Dan Rosenberg did.