Re: win32/memory locking (Re: Reply to EFS note on Bugtraq)

2001-01-24 Thread James Perry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bits _never_ get written to the disk? Guaranteed never to use swap space? The GnuPG FAQ (http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html#q6.1) suggests that it is not possible to make a Windows program insist on physical RAM the way a program can in Open

Re: win32/memory locking (Re: Reply to EFS note on Bugtraq)

2001-01-24 Thread John Wiltshire
From: Peter W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Bits _never_ get written to the disk? Guaranteed never to use swap space? The GnuPG FAQ (http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html#q6.1) suggests that it is not possible to make a Windows program insist on physical RAM the way a program can in Open Systems.

Re: win32/memory locking (Re: Reply to EFS note on Bugtraq)

2001-01-24 Thread Keith Ray
Quoting James Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As described on the MSDN site: "The AllocateUserPhysicalPages function is used to allocate physical memory. Memory allocated by this function must be physically present in the system. Once allocated, it is locked down and unavailable to the rest of

win32/memory locking (Re: Reply to EFS note on Bugtraq)

2001-01-23 Thread Peter W
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:28:50PM -0800, Ryan Russell wrote: Due to some mail trouble, I'm manually forwarding this note. From: Microsoft Security Response Center Subject:Re: BugTraq: EFS Win 2000 flaw "... it is recommended that it is always better to start by