On Sat, 31 May 2003 09:17:16 -0400, "Phillip J. Eby" <pje@telecommunity.com> writes: > At 05:02 PM 5/30/03 -0500, Scott A Crosby wrote: > But based on the discussion so far, I'm not sure I see how this attack > would produce an effect that was dramatically disproportionate to the > amount of data transmitted. I apologize for not having this available earlier, but a corrected file of 10,000 inputs is now available and shows the behavior I claimed. (Someone else independently reimplemented the attack and has sent me a corrected set for python.) With 10,000 inputs, python requires 19 seconds to process instead of .2 seconds. A file of half the size requires 4 seconds, showing the quadratic behavior, as with the case of perl. (Benchmarked on a P2-450) I thus predict that twice the inputs would take about 80 seconds. I can only guess what python applications might experience an interesting impact from this, so I'll be silent. However, here are the concrete benchmarks. Scott
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4