On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 06:09:23PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> > Not to mention that
> > it's totally undefined and random.
>
> Well, you have the guarantee that it's network data since
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
[...]
> > An "attacker" might as well just
> > rely on temperature to guess at how to interpret what he/she's seeing
> > in those few bytes. The data in our case is probably DMA'd straight
> > out of the mb
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> > The short of it is that if a tx packet is < 64 bytes (min ethernet frame
> > len), data can be leaked if the driver transmits 64 bytes. It seems our
> > use of mbufs would prevent leakage bu
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> The short of it is that if a tx packet is < 64 bytes (min ethernet frame
> len), data can be leaked if the driver transmits 64 bytes. It seems our
> use of mbufs would prevent leakage but I haven't examined any drivers to
> verify thi
The short of it is that if a tx packet is < 64 bytes (min ethernet frame
len), data can be leaked if the driver transmits 64 bytes. It seems our
use of mbufs would prevent leakage but I haven't examined any drivers to
verify this.
http://www.atstake.com/research/advisories/2003/atstake_etherleak_
