On Dec 03, 2003, at 01:52, Eugene Tsyrklevich wrote:
> indeed, it should
This has been patched to use /dev/urandom in v1.4, which also fixes a
couple of other issues.
> have you seen http://synflood.at/contrapolice/? your paper did not
> mention
> this.
We didn't find this when we did our related work search back during
late spring, but Andreas contacted me after our announcement. From
looking at the code, I don't think the goals are quite the same. We
only try to protect the chunk headers, but it seems that he wants
instead to protect data contained in the user-visible memory region.
This would be nice, but I think this has its own set of issues.
> any plans on porting this to OpenBSD (and saving me time :)?
I've started looking at it, but I don't think I'll have time to
seriously evaluate the situation there for a week or two, so feel free.
:-)
> eugene
--
William Robertson
Reliable Software Group, UC Santa Barbara
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~wkr/
> indeed, it should
This has been patched to use /dev/urandom in v1.4, which also fixes a
couple of other issues.
> have you seen http://synflood.at/contrapolice/? your paper did not
> mention
> this.
We didn't find this when we did our related work search back during
late spring, but Andreas contacted me after our announcement. From
looking at the code, I don't think the goals are quite the same. We
only try to protect the chunk headers, but it seems that he wants
instead to protect data contained in the user-visible memory region.
This would be nice, but I think this has its own set of issues.
> any plans on porting this to OpenBSD (and saving me time :)?
I've started looking at it, but I don't think I'll have time to
seriously evaluate the situation there for a week or two, so feel free.
:-)
> eugene
--
William Robertson
Reliable Software Group, UC Santa Barbara
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~wkr/
[ reply ]