On 29 Mar 2005 00:37:34 GMT, Bradley Bungmunch
<bradley_bungmunch@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:19:33 -0500, Me
><no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> had a scratch and wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:47:49 GMT, a@b.c wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39183346,00.htm
>>
>>That's horse crap. There's no way you'll ever prove what machine is
>>sending data simply from the clock skew of the machine. The odds are
>>extremely high that many, many machines share the same clock error.
>>That's a bit like trying to ID a car from the error of the clock on
>>the dash. In a parking lot of a few thousand cars, odds are very high
>>that quite a few will lose or gain the exact same amount of time every
>>day.
>>
>
>
>All evidence is circumstantial, and it all mounts up. By itself, that
>new type of PC fingerprinting isn't enough, but if you have already
>narrowed the odds to say 1:1000 - then gotcha.
>
>
>It's a cunt. Don't be in denial about it.
Lets just say that I'm not gunna give myself worry lines over it. :-)
|
|