Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: MooseFET <kensmith@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:59:03 -0700
On Jul 5, 11:29 am, n...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Nico Coesel) wrote:
MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:27 am, n...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Nico Coesel) wrote:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:13:42 GMT) it happened n...@xxxxxxxxxxx
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <468bd3e8.1017820...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
You are qouting the C specification. This doesn't mean it is
implemented that way it just tells you you must expect rubbish. But
like I said, to be absolutely sure no data can be shared between
different tasks unintended, any data used by an application is cleared
(this does not necessarely mean made 0) by the OS before it is
returned to the memory allocation pool.
Well, maybe you should specify *what* OS you are talking about.
Any modern OS should do this.
I disagree. Clearing memory takes time. If speed is the issue, you
can save time by not clearing memory. Applications that handle secure
data can clear the memory before freeing it so applications have
control over the security issue.
Bad idea. Rule number one: never leave security to an application
programmer. There should be a seperate 'layer' which deals with
security (like a firewall).
In not a single program or even OS I know about is memory cleared or
as you state overwritten by some other value, _after_ an application ends.
An application, if indeed written in C, ends normally by executing exit():
Don't think C (there are other languages!) but think security where
each application should live in its own sand box. In the end the OS
gives and takes memory to an application. So its the OS which has the
last thing to say about what happens to the memory that was used by
the application.
The OS needs to keep overhead to a minimum. What you are suggesting
adds a bunch of overhead. In time critical applications, this is a
bad thing.
Depends on your application. If you are developing stuff that is
somehow connected to the outside world I'd rather invest in a faster
CPU than having to explain my customers why their system was
vulnerable to an attack. A lot of embedded hardware gets connected to
a network these days. This makes life a lot easier but it comes with a
huge amount of security issues which need to be addressed.
You are assuming that unlimited CPU power can be bought and that it
doesn't increase cost or power consuption. A simple bit of good
programming practice of clearing the secret stuff before giving the
memory back solves the security problems at much less cost in
performance.
.
- References:
- DRAM data persistence
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: MooseFET
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: MooseFET
- Re: DRAM data persistence
- From: Nico Coesel
- DRAM data persistence
- Prev by Date: Re: Heartburn of the Day
- Next by Date: Re: PIC18f4331 PWM Problem
- Previous by thread: Re: DRAM data persistence
- Next by thread: Re: DRAM data persistence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|