Privacy

5701 readers

204 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

Be civil and no prejudice
Don't promote big-tech software
No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
No reposting of news that was already posted
No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

submitted 20 hours ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

So, you're saying you only needed one timer?