Re: RSA's SecurPC not-so-"Secur"

geeman@best.com
Tue, 19 May 1998 08:51:24 -0700

• Next message: James Black: "re: question on campus computer security"
• Previous message: Bill Stewart: "Re: RSA's SecurPC not-so-"Secur""
• In reply to: Julian Assange: "Re: RSA's SecurPC not-so-"Secur""

Indeed, and that may be true factoring in the crypto ohead. Fact remains
that paging is then required to run in a critical section and it does
prevent any other use of the file system when the pager's busy. Whether
this has a noticable subjective effect will depend on what you're doing.

You can switch your system any time to use real-mode drivers --- I know if
I do it on my machine it gets slower.

At 12:51 PM 5/19/98, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
>Win95 has drivers which take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of newer
>drives, so this doesn't hold true any more for that. However from feedback
>I've had from users any performance difference is negligible.
>
>Peter.
>
>
>
>

• Next message: James Black: "re: question on campus computer security"
• Previous message: Bill Stewart: "Re: RSA's SecurPC not-so-"Secur""
• In reply to: Julian Assange: "Re: RSA's SecurPC not-so-"Secur""