schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to Privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 days agoWebsites have a new way to spy on visitors: analyzing their SSD activityarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square38linkfedilinkarrow-up198arrow-down12cross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.seprivacy@lemmy.mltechnology@beehaw.orgprivacy@lemmy.worldprivacy@programming.devpulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
arrow-up196arrow-down1external-linkWebsites have a new way to spy on visitors: analyzing their SSD activityarstechnica.comschnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to Privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 days agomessage-square38linkfedilinkcross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.seprivacy@lemmy.mltechnology@beehaw.orgprivacy@lemmy.worldprivacy@programming.devpulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
minus-squaresp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·6 days agoWaterfox seems to already have a default of 1000 microseconds, if… I think, you go with ‘strict’ privacy settings option? So on the one hand, a very brief perusal of the paper shows that the method needs like, sub 200 timings to work well. On the other hand… I have no idea if the exploit method effectively circumvents the way this timing speed limit actually works. I basically just sped read everything lol.
minus-squarewyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·6 days agoSo, you’re saying you only needed one timer?
Waterfox seems to already have a default of 1000 microseconds, if… I think, you go with ‘strict’ privacy settings option?
So on the one hand, a very brief perusal of the paper shows that the method needs like, sub 200 timings to work well.
On the other hand… I have no idea if the exploit method effectively circumvents the way this timing speed limit actually works.
I basically just sped read everything lol.
So, you’re saying you only needed one timer?