Re: [PAPER] Juggling with packets: floating data storage

["David Heigl" <davidh () braunlift com>]

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