From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 01:12:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811281641.RAA12739@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate misses the point, as usual:

> Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple.
> The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point
> to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address
> spaces of the system structures.

The original message said:

> From: "Jim Adler" <jadler@soundcode.com>
> The SCNSM driver supports allocation of non-swappable memory on Windows
> 3.x/95/98. The principal design goal of SCNSM is to provide memory that will
> not be swapped to disk, under any circumstances. Typically, security
> applications require such memory to store private keys, passwords, and
> sensitive intermediate results of cryptographic calculations.

What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this?
This is a driver which is used by the application to allocate specific
memory buffers in non-swappable memory.  It allows the app to lock down
those buffers so that they won't swap to disk.  These buffers can then
be used to hold sensitive data.

It is neither possible nor desirable to run the ENTIRE OS out of
such buffers.  It is not possible because the OS is already written.
It is Windows 3.x/95/98 (see above).  That OS does not make the special
driver calls which would be necessary to allocate non-swappable memory.
You would have to rewrite Windows to use the special calls, which isn't
possible for a luser like Choate.

And it's not even desirable.  There is no reason to make the ENTIRE OS
use non-swappable memory.  Most memory is simply not that sensitive.
It holds public data, or data which is already on the disk in some form.
Putting the ENTIRE OS into non-swappable memory gives up much of the
advantage of having virtual memory in the first place.  It would be a
giant step backwards in OS architecture.

Here's what Choate had to say when Bill Stewart tried to politely help
him out:

> You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me....
> Talk about unprepared.
> Your guess is pretty much worthless.

It's bad enough to have to endure more of Choate's idiocy, but it is
especially offensive to see him hassling Bill Stewart, one of the most
consistently informative and valuable list members.  Bill's a thick-
skinned guy and it's probably no big deal to him, but it further
illustrates what a negative contribution Choate makes here.