|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/07/2012 03:48 PM, clipka wrote:
> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
(Yes, you can do that.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.07.2012 17:00, schrieb Invisible:
> On 06/07/2012 03:48 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>
> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
> (Yes, you can do that.)
I'm reminded of a school colleague of mine, proud owner of a tape
streamer back in good old QIC-80 times, who had the smart idea to back
up the installation media of all his software on tape so that he could
get rid of that huge pile of diskettes collecting dust on his bookshelves.
That's /all/ his software, yes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 06/07/2012 03:48 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>
> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
> (Yes, you can do that.)
Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
leakage, so I'm going to go with (B) the PGP process is not swappable.
I'm sure that most disk encryption companies have figured this one
out... probably after an "oops!" in beta testing.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
>>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>>
>> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
>> (Yes, you can do that.)
>
> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
> leakage,
Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown.
(This doesn't save you in case of a power failure, mind you.)
Also, when I last read the PGP manual, it claims to demand that the OS
not swap out any security data that PGP itself is managing, e.g.
encryption keys. (It also makes the keys around to different physical
memory pages, and overwrites the old place with random data, to prevent
somebody yanking the RAM chips out and deep-freezing them to try to
recover the data once the power is gone. Really paranoid stuff like that...)
> so I'm going to go with (B) the PGP process is not swappable.
Yeah, I would imagine that's the case.
> I'm sure that most disk encryption companies have figured this one
> out... probably after an "oops!" in beta testing.
More like alpha testing, I should think. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.07.2012 19:27, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and
>>>> needs to
>>>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>>>
>>> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
>>> (Yes, you can do that.)
>>
>> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
>> leakage,
>
> Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown.
Better yet, overwrite it with pseudorandom nonsense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
>>> leakage,
>>
>> Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown.
>
> Better yet, overwrite it with pseudorandom nonsense.
Yeah, that _would_ be better. But there isn't a registry key for that. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 06/07/2012 07:20, Invisible escreveu:
> On 06/07/2012 11:17 AM, clipka wrote:
>
>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>
>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>
> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?
now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of
cornell box... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>>
>>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>>
>> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?
>
> now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of
> cornell box... :)
Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
claimed. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.07.2012 15:01, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>>>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>>>
>>>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>>>
>>> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?
>>
>> now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of
>> cornell box... :)
>
> Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
> going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
> claimed. :-P
Not exactly, but do expect more than 4x speedup. You may probably also
get away with lower radiosity quality settings.
Are you at least using the 64-bit version of 3.6.2?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
>> going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
>> claimed. :-P
>
> Not exactly, but do expect more than 4x speedup.
Um, why?
> You may probably also
> get away with lower radiosity quality settings.
How do you work that one out? Running it in parallel doesn't change the
math, it just makes it faster.
> Are you at least using the 64-bit version of 3.6.2?
Yes.
Since I now actually have a 64-bit OS...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |