Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I wrote a paper a few years ago that was published in a journal and which I felt was subsequently refuted by another paper. (I argued that for various reasons a server can never tell if a client has been virtualized or modified or not in the absence of hardware-based anti-virtualization features, but https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jfrankli/hotos07/vmm_detection_hotos... and some recently work on obfuscators make me think I was mostly to entirely wrong.) Particularly since I don't have a blog right now, I keep thinking that I have no way to correct my assertions in public. It feels like it would be useful to be able to do that, just so if anyone somehow comes across the old paper they could quickly find out why its arguments aren't valid.



Personally I wouldn't worry about it, given it was an honest mistake, so long as more recent papers that refute your claim cite your paper. Whenever I'm reading an interesting paper I always do a reverse citation search to see what more recent papers say about it. I find that if a paper's claims are important enough someone in the field will publish a paper if they have results that contradict it.


If it makes you feel any better, I don't think that paper refutes your claim through any general law. It just enumerates a bunch of side effects of current virtualization approaches, all of which are focused on performance/isolation. It's not inconceivable that someone could develop virtualization software that offers a significantly slower clock speed processor to the VM to give it plenty of time to do things in the luxurious gaps without giving away timing information.


PubPeer might be a decent option. They have some mechanism to identify comments from the author but I haven't investigated how it works.

www.pubpeer.com


One usual approach is to write to the original journal and see if they'll post a notice.


Whatever happened to loyalty.org & virtuanova?


Some things happened that made me no longer feel that my life was "new", so I stopped blogging there. (One thing is that the friend's server that it was hosted on went down.) I had trouble thinking of a new blog name and so neglected to start a successor blog.


If it makes the process of restarting any easier, consider sticking with one of the existing brands.

I'm a big fan of not just writing to write, but focusing on having something to say. I find that when you think you do, you're almost always correct.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: