Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage
From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () ghettot org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:18:12 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
There is a hypothetical Gb optical network link between here and the moon, used for storage. Thus you could store a whopping 2 Gb of data, in a perfect network, or 256 MB. My desktop at home has more DRAM, and has far better access behavior. So the network layer juggling is pointless.
I think you have missed the point. Carrier media level juggling is pointless, indeed, and we're not claiming otherwise; quite the opposite, we consider it to be silly and we are not focusing on it. Network-level juggling is much more interesting, because packet-processing latencies are far higher; how much longer? There are some surprises.
The higher level juggling is still pointless. Lets assume I still have the 1 Gb link to the outside world, and the data round trip latency is a minute (the amount of time data can be stored externally before it comes back to me). Thats still just 60 Gb of data, or 7.5 GB. And I'm having to burn a 1 Gb link to do it!
Should you actually read the paper, it would be easier to comprehend the idea. The paper proposes several approaches that do not require you to send the data back and forth all the time; in some cases, you can achieve near-infinite latency with a very low "sustaining traffic" necessary to prevent the data from being discarded. Besides, the storage size is not the main point, the entire approach is much more interesting from the limited deniability high-privacy storage point of view.
If my external link is "ONLY" 100 Mb, and the latency/refresh time is 1 minute, thats 768 MB of data.
Your latency can be much higher, that's the first observation of the paper, and it is possible without increasing access times in many cases. Funny. The second observation is that not all the data has to be send back and forth all the time. Interesting. The third observation is that there are some interesting applications of this approach other than storing warez. Could there be? So, while I hate to say this, reading the paper is usually a good idea before ridiculing it... Cheers, -- ------------------------- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: -- Michal Zalewski * [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx] Did you know that clones never use mirrors? --------------------------- 2003-10-08 20:11 -- http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/photo/current/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Wojciech Purczynski (Oct 06)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage S G Masood (Oct 06)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage petard (Oct 06)
- RE: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Alun Jones (Oct 08)
- Re: RE: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Michal Zalewski (Oct 08)
- Message not available
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Nicholas Weaver (Oct 08)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Michal Zalewski (Oct 08)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Nicholas Weaver (Oct 08)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Michal Zalewski (Oct 08)
- Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) Stephen (Oct 08)
- RE: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) Brent Colflesh (Oct 08)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) gregh (Oct 08)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) Paul Schmehl (Oct 08)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) Irwan Hadi (Oct 08)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) Peter King (Oct 09)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) jelmer (Oct 09)
- Re: Internet Explorer (BAN IT !!!) John Sage (Oct 09)
- Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage Nicholas Weaver (Oct 08)