Re: [iwar] News
From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com
Wed, 17 May 2000 13:31:16 -0700
fc Wed May 17 13:28:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 17 May 2000 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed May 17 20:28:07 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-365-958595260-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Wed May 17 15:27:35 2000
Received: from fi.egroups.com (fi.egroups.com [207.138.41.182]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id PAA19671 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:27:35 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-365-958595260-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by fi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 May 2000 20:27:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 12390 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 20:27:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 May 2000 20:27:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.18.65) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 May 2000 20:27:40 -0000
Received: from catalyst (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id NAA27093 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000517132129.00ac86b0@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200005171923.MAA19115@all.net>
References: <200005171824.e4HIOmi28595@virtual.stsi.net>
From: Tony Bartoletti
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:31:16 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] News
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 12:23 PM 5/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>We will be getting asembler code soon - apparently there are some
>exploits already being seen in Asia. Also - please note that the
>simulation idea isn't likely to be successful because the simulator will
>still only be able to simulate the hardware for the OS to use, and since
>the OS will still be vulnerable (Windows needs this hardware facility in
>order to work on a Pentium) it doesn;t get you as much as you might
>like.
True, but it would address the "undocumented hardware instruction"
problem (at the risk of breaking all applications that employ it,
which might be considerable.) As you point out, if Windows itself
uses this "feature" then you have the onerous task of creating a
complete workaround to manage the instruction's reach into memory.
Otherwise, no Windows, and you are hosed.
Does anyone know if Linux makes use of this "feature", or if any
Linux-compatible applications require it (on PC platforms)?
>We are looking at adding custom hardware around the CPU to counter it...
>
>FC
Deployment will be quite an issue there. This will leave the
"common citizens" at the most risk, I assume.
___tony___
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop at gazoontite.com & breathe happier and healthier! Click here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4194/7/_/595019/_/958595261/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
http://all.net/