1995-07-18 - Re: RC4 crack

Header Data

From: “Rev. Mark Grant” <mark@unicorn.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: eede7b3d6e1f31cff74db9fe17e9d3ce274d4a1d36b93404c5335a23309ead4f
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9507172242.A3308-0100000@unicorn.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-07-18 05:06:12 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 22:06:12 PDT

Raw message

From: "Rev. Mark Grant" <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 22:06:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: RC4 crack
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9507172242.A3308-0100000@unicorn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 17 Jul 1995 aba@dcs.exeter.ac.uk wrote:

> The problem with nicing is that most unix schedulers don't seem to
> know what nice means,.. you still get a noticable slow down on
> interactive jobs on SGI boxes even if you've got it npri -h 150, and
> even though the bruterc4 (and the bruteSSL too) have tiny resident
> core sizes).

Nice -19 works great on SunOS, it sits there happily eating up just about
all the unused CPU time and doesn't interfere at all with interactive
use. I guess it's the SYSV (ack) machines that have problems, 'cause the 
scheduler's too sophisticated.

		Mark







Thread