| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3F847729.2040107@mightye.org> From: trash at mightye.org (MightyE) Subject: Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage >Show me another >method that can delete 6.5 GB a data in a completely unrecoverable manner >that quickly. RAM? I haven't priced gigabit hardware recently, but I imagine it's similar or more expensive to maintain a gigabit fiber long enough to hold 6.5 GB of data as it is to create a 6.5 GB ramdisk. The use here (if you must find one) is in hiding data where others don't expect it. -Eric Stevens mightye at mightye dot org Rick Wash wrote: >On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:03:20PM -0700, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > > >>So who cares? Why juggle when shelves hold so much more? >> >> > >Just because you and I don't have a use for this doesn't make it useless. > >This technique has one advantage that I can see being very useful -- it is >easy to delete large amounts of data quickly. Imagine you hear the feds >knocking on your door -- you just unplug your fiber, and let all the light >(aka your data) fly out into the room. Your data is gone, permanently. >If the latency is a minute, then it only takes a minute to delete everything >-- all 6.5 GB of data according to your calculations. Show me another >method that can delete 6.5 GB a data in a completely unrecoverable manner >that quickly. Hard drives need to be overwritten many times, but even then >they can still likely be recovered with enough money put toward it. > > Rick > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists