Live data from Hacker News

For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#31
post #26

If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.

bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw

I think the article gives good reasons to believe they are not typos, why do you think otherwise?

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#32
post #26

If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.

bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw

An interesting control would have been to flip a single bit but also flip a single char so that it flips several bits and compare the results.

edit: Reading the linked article, they describe one of their validation method: > The Host header contains the domain the HTTP client resolved to connect to the bitsquat server. If the Host header matches the original domain, the corruption occurred on the red path (DNS path). If the Host header matches a bitsquat domain, the corruption occurred on the blue path (content path).

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#33

I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"

Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?

The suggestion to invalidate cache is also in ACPI 6.2A 16.1.1.2 Example 2: S1 Sleeping State Implementation (page 783)

http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI%206_2...

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#34

If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.

I maintain a tool that reports errors on Linux systems with ECC memory, and also a website describing the tool (http://mcelog.org). I wrote about patterns in the access logs correlated to time some time ago in my blog:

http://halobates.de/blog/p/181

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#35
post #31
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw

I think the article gives good reasons to believe they are not typos, why do you think otherwise?

While i like the sibling comment's network errors answer better then mine I didn't see any reasoning other then a unfounded statement[1] in the article or on a quick skim for "typo" in the referenced whitepaper:

[1] "These requests were not typos or other manually entered URLs"

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#36
post #26

If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.

bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw

[deleted]

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#38
post #26

If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.

bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw

Is that why some Microsoft download URL with a GUID in it made it to his server? Typo in Windows Update?

I don't think that sounds right.

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#39
post #15

A pedantic point (good thing I'm on HN), but I wonder if they didn't actually mean muons and not gamma rays?

I doubt think the programmer knew one way or the other, just doing what they were told by the manufacturer, and gamma ray is probably easier to explain to anyone after the 1950s/60s than muon. I mean after all, did any superhero get their powers from muons?

Only Muon Man, but he decayed in 2.2μs so he wasn't very well known

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#40

I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"

Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?

It's pretty obvious that when people at Microsoft say "processor vendor" it's a euphemism for "Intel".

Not as true anymore now that they support arm but... Still kinda true.

Post reply on HN