From ee4b471f8ea40f45a37553b298abff25a98d2ccb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: simon Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:14:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Actually, VirtualLock() looks better as \cw{} not \c{}. git-svn-id: svn://svn.tartarus.org/sgt/putty@1826 cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e --- doc/faq.but | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but index 2916a92e..8910010c 100644 --- a/doc/faq.but +++ b/doc/faq.but @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.31 2002/08/09 09:11:09 simon Exp $ +\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.32 2002/08/09 09:14:04 simon Exp $ \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ @@ -795,15 +795,15 @@ all. For this reason we now believe PuTTY's DSA implementation is probably OK. However, if you have the choice, we still recommend you use RSA instead. -\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use \c{VirtualLock()} -to stop private keys being written to disk? +\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use +\cw{VirtualLock()} to stop private keys being written to disk? -Unfortunately not. The \c{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows API -doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a process's -memory from being paged to disk while the process is running, but it -doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from being swapped -completely out to disk when the process is long-term inactive. And -Pageant spends most of its time inactive. +Unfortunately not. The \cw{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows +API doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a +process's memory from being paged to disk while the process is +running, but it doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from +being swapped completely out to disk when the process is long-term +inactive. And Pageant spends most of its time inactive. \H{faq-admin} Administrative questions -- 2.11.0