Leichter, Jerry wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
| Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:24:43 -0500
| From: Thierry Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: "Leichter, Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Cc: Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
| Subject: Re: More on in-memory
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
| Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:24:43 -0500
| From: Thierry Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: "Leichter, Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Cc: Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
| Subject: Re: More on in-memory zeroisation
|
| /
/ testf.c /
#include
#include
typedef void *(*fpt_t)(void *, int, size_t);
void f(fpt_t arg)
{
if (memset==arg)
printf("Hello world!\n");
}
/ test.c /
#include
#include
typedef void *(*fpt_t)(void *, int, size_t);
ext
* William Allen Simpson:
> Assuming,
> Dp := any electronic document submitted by some person, converted to its
> canonical form
> Cp := a electronic certificate irrefutably identifying the other person
> submitting the document
> Cn := certificate of the notary
> Tn := tim
Would anyone on this list be interested in forming a USA chapter of the
Institute
of Information Security Professionals (IISP, www.instisp.org)?
I'm finding it rather difficult to attend events, etc., that are only in
London.
- Alex
--
Alex Alten
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have yet to watch it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2899172465808407804
Description:
Topics include: Introduction to Modern Cryptography, Using Cryptography in
Practice and at Google, Proofs of Security and Security Definitions and A
Special Topic in Cryptography
This talk is one in
| > If the function is defined as I suggested - as a static or inline -
| > you can, indeed, takes its address. (In the case of an inline, this
| > forces the compiler to materialize a copy somewhere that it might
| > not otherwise have produced, but not to actually *use* that copy,
| > except whe
Hi Folks --
I was wondering to what extent the folks on this list have taken
a look the PunchScan voting scheme:
http://punchscan.org/
The site makes the following claims:
>> End-to-end cryptographic independent verification, or E2E, is a
>> mechanism built into an election that allows voter
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The whole point of a notary is to bind a document to a
> person. That the person submitted two or more
> different documents at different times is readily
> observable. After all, the notary has the
> document(s)!
The notary does not want to have the documents, or
Leichter, Jerry wrote:
If the function is defined as I suggested - as a static or inline - you
can, indeed, takes its address. (In the case of an inline, this forces
the compiler to materialize a copy somewhere that it might not otherwise
have produced, but not to actually *use* that copy, ex
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Believe it or not, I thought of CFB...
>
> Sending keep-alives will do nasties to battery
> lifetime, I suspect; most of the time, you're not
> typing. As for CFB -- with a 64-bit block cipher (you
> want them to use DES? they're not going to think of
> anything differ
On 12/10/07, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Believe it or not, I thought of CFB...
What about PCFB to get around the block issue? I remember freenet
using it that way...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unkno
| > However, that doesn't say anything about whether f is actually
| > invoked at run time. That comes under the "acts as if" rule: If
| > the compiler can prove that the state of the C (notional) virtual
| > machine is the same whether f is actually invoked or not, it can
| > elide the call. No
| > Then the compiler can look at the implementation and "prove" that a
| > memset() to a dead variable can be elided
|
| One alternative is to create zero-ing functions that wrap memset()
| calls with extra instructions that examine some of the memory, log a
| message and exit the application
| > It is, of course, the height of irony that the bug was introduced in
| > the very process, and for the very purpose, of attaining FIPS
| > compliance!
|
| But also to be expected, because the feature in question is
| "unnatural": the software needs a testable PRNG to pass the compliance
| test
Leichter, Jerry wrote:
| > There was a discussion on this list a year or two back about
| > problems in using memset() to zeroise in-memory data, specifically
| > the fact that optimising compilers would remove a memset() on
| > (apparently) dead data in the belief that it wasn't serving any
|
| > The whole point of a notary is to bind a document to a person. That
| > the person submitted two or more different documents at different
| > times is readily observable. After all, the notary has the
| > document(s)!
|
| No, the notary does not have the documents *after* they are notarized,
Allen wrote:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
[snip]
The whole point of a notary is to bind a document to a person. That the
person submitted two or more different documents at different times is
readily observable. After all, the notary has the document(s)!
No, the notary does not have the doc
18 matches
Mail list logo
