[ Attempted to clean up citations, apologies if I mis-attribute
something ]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kamal>--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julian> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Kamal>>--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
J
--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> No, POSIX 1003.1 is the standard, the thread portion
> was known for
> some time as 1003.1c, but was combined in with the
> base.
>
Ok -I meant the POSIX std when I answered Julian.
> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
> LinuxThre
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles M. Hannum" wri
tes:
>While you might claim that the dedication to study the user's behavior and
>mount such an attack is fanciful, I claim that it is not. Under observation,
>GBDE's additional techniques do not stand up to the claim of being "spook
>str
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steven M. Bell
ovin" writes:
>etc. I think we need to be careful about phrases like "one can". I
>decided to stop supposing and gather some real data, so I wrote some
>analysis tools to measure the entropy of disk drives. I need to
>rewrite some of my tools a
>
>> 1) If you're doing analysis of a cold disk, it is ~trivial to tell
>> the difference between a sector that has been written only once and
>> a sector that has been rewritten.
>
>This is hardly trivial, you are basing your statement on the false
>assumption that one cannot or will not do anythi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ALeine" writes:
>Could you make the tools you used publically available? I would very
>much like to run that kind of analysis on my disks, especially now
>that I'm planning the implementation of the GBDE changes I proposed.
I will eventually, but there's nothing i
There was a posting to a FreeBSD mailing list (I believe -net, check
the archives) within the last couple months with the FreeBSD 4.x SACK
difference.
Warning: There have been some serious fixes to SACK on FreeBSD
current since that posting. I did not try the SACK changes
becaus
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> I note that GBDE uses a number of algorithms in ways that are not
> consistent with their design purposes. For instance, it truncates a
> non-keyed hash (SHA512); the fact that this is not necessarily a
> good idea is one of the major motivators for the design of HMAC.
On Friday 04 March 2005 18:55, ALeine wrote:
> > 1) If you're doing analysis of a cold disk, it is ~trivial to tell
> > the difference between a sector that has been written only once and
> > a sector that has been rewritten.
>
> This is hardly trivial, you are basing your statement on the false
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Second of all, the cleaning lady copy attack (described in section
> > 10.3), where someone can regularly make bit-wise copies of the
> > entire disk containing the encrypted image and determine the
> > location of sensitive structures by means of differential analysis
Hi all,
I am trying to modify the scheduler to take off some processes (such as those
generated by a forkbomb ... malicious) off the run queue. I have been looking
into the scheduler and proc.h and see there is one way by putting threads on
the 'suspension' queue. I am not sure if this is the sa
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
>> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
>> LinuxThreads)
>> implementation of the POSIX thread standard.
>>
>> Likewise, scheduler activations are a decent
>> implement
12 matches
Mail list logo
