From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 02:50:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811281827.MAA04760@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:44:04 -0600 (CST)

> > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:41:53 +0100
> > From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
> 
> > What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this?
> 
> My mistake. Since it really does only handle individual apps it's of limited
> utility in the Windows world because of the numerous ways to get system
> level access.

I forgot to add that I'd still be interested in knowing if the utility would
support the entire OS being run under this and what the memory constraints
would be.

If I had 2 of the Samsung 4G memory modules w/ battery back-up I could run
an entire machine without a hard-drive.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
             Technology cannot make us other than what we are.

                                           James P. Hogan

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------