[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:06:30 -0500
> From: Bill Stewart <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory
> (RAM) under Windows") (fwd)
> >1. Is it OpenSource?
> Is this a religious argument? I think he said it was copyrighted freeware,
> so use it and leave the copyright notices in and you're ok.
Where does he say that Bill? And while it ain't religious, there are some
perferences to having it open source versus controlled source.
> >2. I assume since it never swaps to disk the memory requirements for the
> > computer are large. What is the minimum suggested if one runs say
> > 5 apps that each require 16M each, 5*16M & OS overhead?
>
> Bad Assumption. The memory requirements are whatever you want;
Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple.
The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point
to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address
spaces of the system structures.
> if you're storing a few private keys, or intermediate calculation results,
> the requirements are very small; if you're storing 16MB databases,
> they're much larger. For today, 16MB seems large enough that
> I'd think you'd use a crypto-disk or instead of nailing it into RAM,
> but the boundaries between huge, routine, and small keep moving
> in this business, so maybe you do now, and you will soon enough.
Where in that description does it say it allows particular apps to use this
product?
> Does anybody know if Win95/98 keeps RAMdisks in RAM, or swaps them
> out to real disk along with other least-recently-used data?
You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me....
Talk about unprepared.
> > And what is the suggested OS overhead with no swap to disk?
> > (OK, that last one might be a 3rd question)
>
> That's a good question. My guess is that it's probably 0-2KB,
> plus however big the drivers are, might be as big as 64KB,
> but presumably isn't 1MB. In other words, too small to worry about
> on recent machines, where an extra 16MB RAM costs $10,
> but if you're using that spare 4MB 386 as a remailer,
> you've got to be more careful.
Your guess is pretty much worthless. What we'd like is an aswer from the
person who wrote it.
____________________________________________________________________
Technology cannot make us other than what we are.
James P. Hogan
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------