On 7/27/14, intrigeri <intrig...@boum.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I was a bit sad that the TCP timestamps thing went nowhere, after the > energy we've put into discussing it, so I've built an ISO with the > corresponding branch merged in, and successfully run the automated > test suite on it. So, at least we now know it doesn't break too much > stuff in obvious ways. Good!
Ok. Great! > > But that's not enough to merge this branch: > > intrigeri wrote (07 Jan 2014 23:12:31 GMT) : >>>> I'll come back to you and Jacob for the design doc phrasing, as I'm >>>> still not convinced we can put statements as bold as "tracking the >>>> clock down to the millisecond" in there, without thinking a bit about >>>> how an attacker is affected by the network lag between the time a TCP >>>> timestamp was created, and the time when they get to see the packet. > >>>> I mean, I'm weak at stats and all and you probably know better, but >>>> learning that "some unknown time ago, the system clock was T with >>>> a millisecond precision" does not really give me the current system >>>> clock with a millisecond precision, does it? > >>> This still needs some input. > >> Now known as #6581. > Ok. I'll comment on #6581 shortly. > This is still waiting for some input from those who are confident that > disabling TCP timestamps buys us much, and feel able to phrase it in > a way that's suitable for our design doc. Once we have that phrasing, > I volunteer to integrate it into the design doc and propose a branch. > > Any taker? Yes, I'm on it. All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
