A completely different approach is to use compilation methods that perform bounds-checking (see [Sitaker 1999] for a list). In my opinion, such tools are very useful in having multiple layers of defense, but it's not wise to use this technique as your sole defense. There are at least two reasons for this. First of all, such tools generally only provide a partial defense against buffer overflows (and the ``complete'' defenses are generally 12-30 times slower); C and C++ were simply not designed to protect against buffer overflows. Second of all, for open source programs you cannot be certain what tools will be used to compile the program; using the default ``normal'' compiler for a given system might suddenly open security flaws.
One of the more useful tools is ``StackGuard'', a modification of the standard GNU C compiler gcc. StackGuard works by inserting a ``guard'' value (called a ``canary'') in front of the return address; if a buffer overflow overwrites the return address, the canary's value (hopefully) changes and the system detects this before using it. This is quite valuable, but note that this does not protect against buffer overflows overwriting other values (which they may still be able to use to attack a system). There is work to extend StackGuard to be able to add canaries to other data items, called ``PointGuard''. PointGuard will automatically protect certain values (e.g., function pointers and longjump buffers). However, protecting other variable types using PointGuard requires specific programmer intervention (the programmer has to identify which data values must be protected with canaries). This can be valuable, but it's easy to accidentally omit protection for a data value you didn't think needed protection - but needs it anyway. More information on StackGuard, PointGuard, and other alternatives is in Cowan .
IBM has developed a stack protection system called ProPolice based on the ideas of StackGuard. IBM doesn't include the ProPolice name in its current website - it's just called a "GCC extension for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks". However, it's hard to talk about something without using a name, so I'll continue to use the name ProPolice. Like StackGuard, ProPolice is a GCC (Gnu Compiler Collection) extension for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks. Applications written in C are protected by automatically inserting protection code into an application at compilation time. ProPolice is slightly different than StackGuard, however, by adding three features: (1) reordering local variables to place buffers after pointers (to avoid the corruption of pointers that could be used to further corrupt arbitrary memory locations), (2) copying pointers in function arguments to an area preceding local variable buffers (to prevent the corruption of pointers that could be used to further corrupt arbitrary memory locations), and (3) omitting instrumentation code from some functions (it basically assumes that only character arrays are dangerous; while this isn't strictly true, it's mostly true, and as a result ProPolice has better performance while retaining most of its protective capabilities). The IBM website includes information for how to build Red Hat Linux and FreeBSD with this protection; OpenBSD has already added ProPolice to their base system, and the Trusted Debian project uses this too. I think this is extremely promising, and I hope to see this capability included in future versions of gcc and used in various distributions. In fact, I think this kind of capability should be the default - this would mean that the largest single class of attacks would no longer enable attackers to take control in most cases.
On Windows, Microsoft's compilers include the /GS option to include StackGuard-like protection against buffer overflows. However, it's worth noting that at least on Microsoft Windows 2003 Server these protection mechanisms can be defeated.
As a related issue, in Linux you could modify the Linux kernel so that the stack segment is not executable; such a patch to Linux does exist (see Solar Designer's patch, which includes this, at http://www.openwall.com/linux/ However, as of this writing this is not built into the Linux kernel. Part of the rationale is that this is less protection than it seems; attackers can simply force the system to call other ``interesting'' locations already in the program (e.g., in its library, the heap, or static data segments). Also, sometimes Linux does require executable code in the stack, e.g., to implement signals and to implement GCC ``trampolines''. Solar Designer's patch does handle these cases, but this does complicate the patch. Personally, I'd like to see this merged into the main Linux distribution, since it does make attacks somewhat more difficult and it defends against a range of existing attacks. However, I agree with Linus Torvalds and others that this does not add the amount of protection it would appear to and can be circumvented with relative ease. You can read Linus Torvalds' explanation for not including this support at http://old.lwn.net/1998/0806/a/linus-noexec.html.
A related "non-executable segment" approach was developed by Ingo Molnar, termed Exec Shield. Molnar's exec shield limits the region that executable code can exist, and then moves executable code below that region. If the code is moved to an area where a zero byte must occur, then it's harder to exploit because many ASCII-based attacks cannot insert a zero byte. This isn't foolproof, but it does prevent certain attacks. However, many programs invoke libraries that in aggregate are so large that their addresses can have a non-zero in them, making them much more vulnerable.
A different approach is to limit transfer of control; this doesn't prevent all buffer overflow attacks (e.g., those that attack data) but it can make other attacks harder [Kiriansky 2002]
In short, it's better to work first on developing a correct program that defends itself against buffer overflows. Then, after you've done this, by all means use techniques and tools like StackGuard as an additional safety net. If you've worked hard to eliminate buffer overflows in the code itself, then StackGuard (and tools like it) are are likely to be more effective because there will be fewer ``chinks in the armor'' that StackGuard will be called on to protect.