Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Nicholas Weaver" <nweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Alun Jones" <alun@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Wojciech Purczynski'" <cliph@xxxxxxx>;
"'Michal Zalewski'" <lcamtuf@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<secpapers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <vulnwatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<vulndiscuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxx>
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