"... In PAGE 19: ...pplication is given in Section 6.1. Each timing was measured starting when the user selected the door from the resource list on her phone (a Nokia 6620), and ended when the door unlocked. As shown in Table1 , this delay was approximately six seconds excluding any user interaction (more on this below), with a small variance resulting from background work on the phone, such as alarms, housekeeping, and other applications. The second macrobenchmark is the time required for a user to log into a 2GHz Windows XP workstation.... In PAGE 19: ... Her capture-resilient key is then used at these intervals to create a short-lived certificate for a non-capture-resilient public key (a step which does require PIN entry) that is used to sign access requests. As such, the common case incurs only the latency of a signature with this non-capture-resilient key; the measurements in Table1 reflect this. Third, the network address for each of the computers regulating access was already stored in the resource list of the phone and so, e.... In PAGE 20: ... Among the most significant sources of delay are RSA signatures and accessing the Record Management Store (RMS), which is a sim- plified file system and the only long-term storage available to the Java VM. The left columns of Table 2 describe these costs for the Nokia 6620, the device used in the experiments described in Table1 . The 30KB RMS read and write benchmarks measure the time it takes to read and write a standard address-book picture, each about 30KB in size.... ..."

"... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table 5: Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table8 : Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table 5: Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table8 : Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table 5: Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table8 : Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ... (In this case, the server process was not modified.) Table5 (and figures 16 and 17) shows that user-level demultiplexing has a small cost (20% greater latency) for short messages, but decreases bulk throughput by more than a factor of four (much of this is attributable to the poor IPC facilities in 4.3BSD).... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table5 : Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table 8: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ... (In this case, the server process was not modified.) Table5 (and figures 16 and 17) shows that user-level demultiplexing has a small cost (20% greater latency) for short messages, but decreases bulk throughput by more than a factor of four (much of this is attributable to the poor IPC facilities in 4.3BSD).... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table5 : Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table 8: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ... (In this case, the server process was not modified.) Table5 (and figures 16 and 17) shows that user-level demultiplexing has a small cost (20% greater latency) for short messages, but decreases bulk throughput by more than a factor of four (much of this is attributable to the poor IPC facilities in 4.3BSD).... In PAGE 34: ...List of Tables Table 1: Cost of sending packets 16 Table 2: Relative performance of VMTP for small messages 16 Table 3: Relative performance of VMTP for bulk data transfer 17 Table 4: Effect of received-packet batching on performance 17 Table5 : Effect of user-level demultiplexing on performance 18 Table 6: Relative performance of stream protocol implementations 19 Table 7: Relative performance of Telnet 19 Table 8: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing 20 Table 9: Per-packet cost of user-level demultiplexing with received-packet 21 batching Table 10: Cost of interpreting packet filters 21... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... Table10 shows an anomaly similar to that in the microbenchmark, verifying that the effects of L2 caching are easily visible in places other than simple file system microbenchmarks. However, these numbers have peculiarities of their own.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... Table10 shows an anomaly similar to that in the microbenchmark, verifying that the effects of L2 caching are easily visible in places other than simple file system microbenchmarks. However, these numbers have peculiarities of their own.... ..."

"... In PAGE 105: ... The rootkits were collected from the web and from a honeynet [11, 46]. Table7 shows the list of user-level rootkits that we have collected for testing. The user-level rootkits were selected in order to have a representative sample of di erent attacks that can be conducted by user-level rootkits.... ..."