[ 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:
JulianKamal
--- 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
LinuxThreads)
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
strength.
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 and do 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 anything to
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 in
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
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
is
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
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
implementation of
doesn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
