You know, this topic is quickly getting out of hand, but I can't help but wonder what you were doing spewing 6.5 gigabytes of incriminating data around on a link with a minute of latency, just so you wouldn't have to store it locally... Or perhaps you meant that you have a ~11 million mile long reel of fiber in your basement? Dave Heigl erst-while troll and nay-sayer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Wash" <rwash@citi.umich.edu> To: "Nicholas Weaver" <nweaver@CS.berkeley.edu> Cc: "Alun Jones" <alun@texis.com>; "'Wojciech Purczynski'" <cliph@isec.pl>; "'Michal Zalewski'" <lcamtuf@coredump.cx>; <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>; <secpapers@securityfocus.com>; <vulnwatch@vulnwatch.org>; <vulndiscuss@vulnwatch.org>; <full-disclosure@netsys.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage > 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
