"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.09.15.21.28.44.920691@wrench.yi.org:
>...snip...
> Personally, I have this built in aversion to storing my files on
> someone else's machine(s). Even if they are encrypted before they get
> there. Just rubs my fur the wrong way. My important backups go to CD,
> and then into the fire box. I have a safety deposit box too, and store
> some CD's there, like a home inventory for insurance purposes. Even
> that bothers me.
>
The truly paranoid store their backups in a ziplock bag in a piece of PVC
pipe (complete with a silica gel pack) with screw-plugs at each end. The
PVC pipe is buried at night far in the woods on public land in a vertical
hole dug with a post-hole digger, and the encrypted GPS coordinates are
kept safely elsewhere.
Same for money, gold, a pistol, and one's "other" passport. All in
different spots, of course.
But then again, some folks think I'm crazy. That is, the charitable ones
hold such views - my enemies are harsher in their estimations of me :-)
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:28:30 +0100, Ray Vingnutte wrote:
>> If you have root you can simply disable selunix, send the reboot
> command,
>> and log back in when it comes back on line. But if you have root, why
>> bother? You can do whatever you want.
>
> This is what I'm still not sure about, but from what I have read so far it
> does indeed seem this is on the level. I have tried getting selinux up and
> running to have a good look around at it myself but so far have not been
> successful. A quick search at google for Russell Coker who seems to be up
> in the front on selinux turns up many links but here's one to what he
> calls his play machines. You can login in as root!! Have not been
> successful at login myself maybe his machines are no longer available.
>
> http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/play.html
Just took a quick look. It's locked down to the point of being useless
IMO. The root account certainly can't be used for administration as
it's configured.
Regardless, it's a good demonstration of how SELinux can be taken to the
extreme, let a user see what they're missing, but not touch. Doing it with
the "root" account makes it feel impressive to users who are logging in,
but after about 10 seconds you realize you're really just another "nobody".
NOTE: I haven't spent a lot of time poking at SELinux beyond adjusting
some policies for httpd in the nifty GUI, so I'm not the best source of
information on the subject. ;)
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Marx
Ari Silversteinn <abcarisilverstein@yahoo.comxyz> wrote :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:15:43 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
>
>> It's just my home computer, nothing top secret or anything.
>> But my whole computing life since around 1989 is on here and
>> I wouldn't want anyone having access to it. Things like my
>> Ebay & Paypal passwords
>
> http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/pins.html
>
>> and some others. My writings, which are personal. Nothing
>> illegal or anything, or top secret.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/axcrypt
>
> Both are easy, full featured and solid.
>
> Oh, and freeware.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:46:06 GMT
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:28:30 +0100, Ray Vingnutte wrote:
>
> >> If you have root you can simply disable selunix, send the reboot
> > command,
> >> and log back in when it comes back on line. But if you have root,
why
> >> bother? You can do whatever you want.
> >
> > This is what I'm still not sure about, but from what I have read so
far it
> > does indeed seem this is on the level. I have tried getting selinux
up and
> > running to have a good look around at it myself but so far have not
been
> > successful. A quick search at google for Russell Coker who seems to
be up
> > in the front on selinux turns up many links but here's one to what
he
> > calls his play machines. You can login in as root!! Have not been
> > successful at login myself maybe his machines are no longer
available.
> >
> > http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/play.html
>
> Just took a quick look. It's locked down to the point of being useless
> IMO. The root account certainly can't be used for administration as
> it's configured.
>
> Regardless, it's a good demonstration of how SELinux can be taken to
the
> extreme, let a user see what they're missing, but not touch. Doing it
with
> the "root" account makes it feel impressive to users who are logging
in,
> but after about 10 seconds you realize you're really just another
"nobody".
>
> NOTE: I haven't spent a lot of time poking at SELinux beyond adjusting
> some policies for httpd in the nifty GUI, so I'm not the best source
of
> information on the subject. ;)
You mean you got it to work ;-) I think my problem with it was I
thought it was just going to be a download and install with some
configuring. I found for whatever reasons it wasn't that simple for me.
Think I'll leave it till weekend when I can give it several hours
attention non stop without interruption and see how it goes then.
>
> --
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
> -Marx
>
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:12:48 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
>>> Sell encrypted file space on a remote server. Call it something like
>>> "Data Vault".
>>
>> Or ibackup, XDrive, BigVault... :)
>>
>> Great idea. Several others though so to. Not that it wouldn't be
>> impossible to compete mind you.
>
> But are they just in someone's office server somewhere? I was thinking
No doubt. In fact I'd wager some of them are someone ELSE'S server,
administered remotely. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
> they'd REALLY be secure if they could offer something that was actually
> setup inside the vault of a bank. Think of the image that gives people,
> instead of just a server somewhere.
Cool idea. An obscure rack in some bunker at Los Alamos or something would
be even more impressive. <g>
That might be a good selling point. Maybe not a bank, but if you could
build a hard building... hmmm... maybe an old missile silo. There's a few
for sale here:
Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D2A56D2FC36Mama@
216.196.97.142:
> "Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote :
>
>> Maybe if you explained in a little more detail your
>> circumstances, what you're trying to secure and from whom, and
>> describe your machine and operating system a bit, someone can
>> give you a specific suggestion.
>>
>
> It's just my home computer, nothing top secret or anything. But my
> whole computing life since around 1989 is on here and I wouldn't
> want anyone having access to it. Things like my Ebay & Paypal
> passwords and some others. My writings, which are personal. Nothing
> illegal or anything, or top secret.
Several of us made an attempt to give you some guidance, but it's hard for
us to evaluate your exact needs, your capabiities, your perseverance and
self-discipline, etc. At some point the whole discussion starts to take on
the character of describing sex to a virgin: no amount of talk, however
enlightening, can substitute for experience.
So, lose your virginity. But practice the equivalent of safe sex. First
make a backup of *everything* on your drive (using Ghost, Acronis,
whatever). If you are not in the habit of doing such backups regularly
then now is a wonderful time to acquire it, whether or not you eventually
lose interest in encryption!
Moreover, confirm the integrity of those backups and that they *can* be
restored. Only then should you move on to using encryption. If you do
this, any subsequent contretemps will be, at worst, an inconvenience and
not a disaster.
I'd recommend starting out with Truecrypt. Mess about with it for a while.
Get comfortable. Even do a few experimental or stupid things and see how
easy (or not!) it is to recover. Try both encrypted and plaintext backups.
Put some stuff on an encrypted USB pendrive. Mix and match. Play and learn
while playing.
Then, a newbie no more, move on to full HD encryption.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:19:58 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
[snip]
>> I'd wager you're not all that concerned with someone seeing where in
>> the Internet you surf, viewing the hundreds of pieces of junk mail you
>> get every week, or knowing that your high Solitaire score is pathetic.
>> <g>
>
> Nope.
>
>> And your machine was ready for an upgrade before YOU got it... ;)
>
> No, the machine is ok, a AMD XP 1.4 GHz CPU running XP Home edition,
> with 512 Megs and a 40 gig HD. ( about 22 gig of data and 15 free at
> present )
I'd say you have more than enough horsepower to handle whole disk
encryption with no real performance hit. Unless you're doing something
that pushes the machine to the limit now like real time video editing or
some of the latest whiz-bang games.
And whole disk is more secure. With container encryption you risk some
application writing pieces of your encrypted files to an unencrypted
location of your drive. If the whole drive is locked down it's not a
concern.
> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the computer
> cranking away at it, to get it all done?
I wouldn't think so. I'd guess hours tops, but it's been a long while
since I messed with whole disk. Someone else can no doubt give you a
better estimate.
I'd say give it a go. There's freeware/GPL software out there that will
handle the job just fine, so you're not out anything but your time. And
whole disk meets your usability criteria better than anything else. If
you're unhappy, most of them will allow you to roll back to your
unencrypted state and you can try container encryption. Of course as Nemo
pointed out, backups are ***VITAL***. Nothing is bullet proof, and a
flicker of your power could render your entire drive unrecoverable. :(
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Marx
Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D2A625EC797Mama@
216.196.97.142:
....snip...
> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the
> computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
>
Depending on how hot your CPU & HD are, figure 20-50 Meg/minute (more
likely the low end) which puts the scale for first encryption of most hard
drives at a "small integer" number of hours (small rational number?).
With Safeboot Solo (and Compusec too as best I can remember) you can keep
working on your HD while the first-time encryption proceeds in the
background.
Moreover - and this is impressive! (but don't try it without a good backup)
- you can actually pull the power on SS (or Compusec?) while they are
encrypting for the first time and, when power is restored, they will pick
up seamlessly where they left off! Now that's robust encryption!
Regards,
PS I have never measured what the overhead actually is for full-HD
encryption but I can say that it is not noticeable. My guess is less than
10% for a decent combo of HD, memory, and CPU.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:19:58 -0500
Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote:
> "Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote :
>
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:03:32 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
> >
> >> I have a removable backup drive on a plug port. I use Ghost
> >> to backup to it, then unplug it and hide it, so if my
> >> computer ever gets stolen, at least I could just plug in that
> >> drive and retain it all. I just don't want someone stealing
> >> it and having access to my writings, my passwords, etc.
> >> Things they could cause me extreme grief with.
> >
> > Should have read this before I suggested you give a little
> > more info, huh? :)
> >
> > It sounds to me like you have a lot of documents, maybe a
> > bunch of saved emails, some pictures of your husband on New
> > Years Eve with the lampshade... and the midget. <g> Maybe a
> > big text file with all your login and password information,
> > too. Stuff along those lines... right?
>
> Uh...<blush> sorta.
>
> > I'd wager you're not all that concerned with someone seeing
> > where in the Internet you surf, viewing the hundreds of pieces
> > of junk mail you get every week, or knowing that your high
> > Solitaire score is pathetic. <g>
>
> Nope.
>
> > And your machine was ready for an upgrade before YOU got it...
> > ;)
>
> No, the machine is ok, a AMD XP 1.4 GHz CPU running XP Home
> edition, with 512 Megs and a 40 gig HD. ( about 22 gig of data and
> 15 free at present )
>
> > Sounds like you're a prime candidate for some container
> > encryption. In essence you set up what appears to you as
> > another drive letter, and move everything you want secured to
> > that drive. When it's closed, it's encrypted. When you mount
> > it, it becomes visible. It's bit more work to set up, and not
> > quite as transparent as whole disk, but it's nowhere near as
> > cumbersome as file by file, and a lot less taxing on your
> > precious CPU cycles.
> >
>
>
> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the
> computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
Ok I said I'll shut up but this is relevant, it should take no way near
that sort of time. Forget I'm using linux cos times will be about the
same regardless. The only thing that might vary the time a bit is the
cipher used but even then it won't take anywhere near that long.
For example on a 4.3gig drive of mine whole drive encryption takes just
a matter of minutes. Set it going and go make a cup of tea. On a 10gig
partition I tried it on it took slightly longer of course but again it's
minutes and not hours to do. For a whole 40gig drive set it going and
make a really hot cup of tea and a bite to eat and have a look through
the paper. It really wont take as long as hours.
And I have a slower machine than you at only 1ghz ;-(
>
>
> --
> - Mama Bear
>
> Please add the following url to your sig to, pass the word, and
> help this woman: http://pleasehelpjennifer.com/
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in
news:Xns96D2C223B272Cabcxyzcom@24.71.223.159:
> Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D2A625EC797Mama@
> 216.196.97.142:
>
> ...snip...
>> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
>> encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the
>> computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
>>
>
>
>
> Depending on how hot your CPU & HD are, figure 20-50 Meg/minute (more
> likely the low end) which puts the scale for first encryption of most
> hard drives at a "small integer" number of hours (small rational
> number?).
>
Actually I think I'm guilty both of false precision and underestimation.
Figure a few to a dozen gigs/hr.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:19:58 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
[snippage]
> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the computer
> cranking away at it, to get it all done?
Ya' know, after reading Ari and Nemo, I'm inclined to agree that whole
disk may be a big leap. No reflection on you, just an acknowledgment that
I sometimes forget how things can be routine for some, and daunting for
others. ;)
I'd take Nemo's advice and look seriously at TrueCrypt.
BACKUPS, BACKUPS, BACKUPS! Can't be stressed enough.
Download, install, play. I think you'll find that you're smarter than you
think, and the task of handling your encrypted containers is no more
bothersome than working with data on a CD. Then if you decide down the
road you need more, you'll have the confidence and experience to jump
right in. And you'll have those backups... ;)
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Marx
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:05:02 GMT
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
> Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D2A625EC797Mama@
> 216.196.97.142:
>
> ...snip...
> > I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> > encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the
> > computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
> >
>
>
>
> Depending on how hot your CPU & HD are, figure 20-50 Meg/minute (more
> likely the low end) which puts the scale for first encryption of most
hard
> drives at a "small integer" number of hours (small rational number?).
Hours??,
>
> With Safeboot Solo (and Compusec too as best I can remember) you can
keep
> working on your HD while the first-time encryption proceeds in the
> background.
>
> Moreover - and this is impressive! (but don't try it without a good
backup)
> - you can actually pull the power on SS (or Compusec?) while they are
> encrypting for the first time and, when power is restored, they will
pick
> up seamlessly where they left off! Now that's robust encryption!
Is that using multiple layer encryption then, sounds like it, in that
case yeah it will take much longer.
>
> Regards,
>
> PS I have never measured what the overhead actually is for full-HD
> encryption but I can say that it is not noticeable. My guess is less
than
> 10% for a decent combo of HD, memory, and CPU.
On mine occasionally you might notice a split second pause as if the
machine is saying hold on a mo but if you blink you'll miss it. But
should point out I'm only using one layer encryption if you are using
multi layer a slow down will be more noticeable.
Is it really worth multi layer at this level of protection?.
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:05:02 GMT
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
> Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D2A625EC797Mama@
> 216.196.97.142:
>
> ...snip...
> > I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if I
> > encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of the
> > computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
> >
>
>
>
> Depending on how hot your CPU & HD are, figure 20-50 Meg/minute (more
> likely the low end) which puts the scale for first encryption of most
hard
> drives at a "small integer" number of hours (small rational number?).
Hours??.
>
> With Safeboot Solo (and Compusec too as best I can remember) you can
keep
> working on your HD while the first-time encryption proceeds in the
> background.
>
> Moreover - and this is impressive! (but don't try it without a good
backup)
> - you can actually pull the power on SS (or Compusec?) while they are
> encrypting for the first time and, when power is restored, they will
pick
> up seamlessly where they left off! Now that's robust encryption!
>
Is that using multiple layer encryption then, sounds like it, in that
case yeah it will take much longer.
> Regards,
>
> PS I have never measured what the overhead actually is for full-HD
> encryption but I can say that it is not noticeable. My guess is less
than
> 10% for a decent combo of HD, memory, and CPU.
On mine occasionally you might notice a split second pause as if the
machine is saying hold on a mo but if you blink you'll miss it. But
should point out I'm only using one layer encryption if you are using
multi layer a slow down will be more noticeable.
Is it really worth multi layer at this level of protection?.
Ray Vingnutte <rvmospam@againnospam.our.uk> wrote in
news:20050916022615.6847e5ca@darkstar.example.org:
>>
>> Depending on how hot your CPU & HD are, figure 20-50 Meg/minute (more
>> likely the low end) which puts the scale for first encryption of most
> hard
>> drives at a "small integer" number of hours (small rational number?).
>
> Hours??,
Yep, for a 100 Gig plus HD - but only the first time. Even good drives
read at, say, 30M/s average (OK 50 M/s for a really hot one) and
something similar for a write. To read and write every sector on a 120
Gig drive is going to take over 2 hours at that rate (1 read and 1 write
for every sector) even assuming *no computational delay* to apply the
encryption (and no delay to waiting for the sector to come round again to
be written after the read - this assumes the buffering introduces no
delays).
>> With Safeboot Solo (and Compusec too as best I can remember) you can
> keep
>> working on your HD while the first-time encryption proceeds in the
>> background.
>>
>> Moreover - and this is impressive! (but don't try it without a good
> backup)
>> - you can actually pull the power on SS (or Compusec?) while they are
>> encrypting for the first time and, when power is restored, they will
> pick
>> up seamlessly where they left off! Now that's robust encryption!
>
> Is that using multiple layer encryption then, sounds like it, in that
> case yeah it will take much longer.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> PS I have never measured what the overhead actually is for full-HD
>> encryption but I can say that it is not noticeable. My guess is less
> than
>> 10% for a decent combo of HD, memory, and CPU.
>
> On mine occasionally you might notice a split second pause as if the
> machine is saying hold on a mo but if you blink you'll miss it. But
> should point out I'm only using one layer encryption if you are using
> multi layer a slow down will be more noticeable.
>
> Is it really worth multi layer at this level of protection?.
I guessed 10% as an upper limit, since that might be my threshold of
"just noticing." As I said, any delay is well below my threshold for
noticing, but, of course, I can't say how much below without measuring.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:02:53 -0500, in alt.computer.security you
wrote:
>Stephen Howard <seesigfor@email.uk> wrote :
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:25:13 -0500, Mama Bear
>> <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a low cost way to password protect my hard drive, so
>>>that if it was stolen along with my computer, no one could
>>>access it? Something not too hard to log in with when I start
>>>it up though?
>>>
>>>I have Systemworks 2005 but don't think there's anything in
>>>there for this.
>>
>> I think encryption's the key ( excuse pun ).
>> Once someone has access to your computer's internals it's
>> pretty much all over bar the shouting - but if the data is
>> securely encrypted then all they really have is a nice new
>> computer.
>>
>> There are quite a few freeware apps that you might find
>> useful. I use Blowfish Advanced CS to encrypt my sensitive
>> data, and there are other good encryption programs out there.
>> Some people prefer to use encrypted drives or 'containers'.
>> Both systems will work for you, it's just a matter of
>> preference/convenience.
>
>By encrypted drives or 'containers', do you mean that it encrypts
>the whole drive as a container? Does that slow everything down a
>lot?
As far as I'm aware ( I've never used this method ), you can either
use an entire drive partition or a section of a partition that behaves
like a separate drive.
I should imagine the system overheads aren't too severe, but
nonetheless noticeable with intensive disk activity each time a
container was accessed.
I've avoided this method because of the difficulty in backing up files
stored on such drives. Files encrypted separately can be moved, copied
and otherwise thrown about just like any other file...and once
encrypted they stay that way no matter where you place them ( and you
should always keep a copy of your passwords file...encrypted, of
course! ).
>
>> Blowfish Advanced can make use of 'job files', which
>> essentially act like DOS batch files. You can set up a series
>> of encryption/decryption tasks that run from a shortcut on
>> your desktop.
>
>I need the whole thing to be transparent, and hopefully fast
>enough where it doesn't slow my system way down.
Blowfish Advanced can be set up in a 'two time' operation.
Let's assume that you wanted to encrypt a set of folders that
contained all your sensitive data.
You simply open up the program and select the folders you wish to
encrypt. You then encrypt then using your chosen password, and once
the program has run it throw up a job file report - which tell you
what it's done. You can save this as a job file.
Repeat the operation, selecting decrypt this time - and the same will
happen. You now have two job files saved. Simply drag them to the
desktop or the start menu as shortcuts and thereafter all you need to
do is click on the relevant icons and enter your password.
Blowfish is one of the faster algorithms in use - my own routine that
deals with upwards of 50Mb takes barely a minute to run.
There are other options you can make use of, such as caching (
remembering ) your password for as long as the computer is on - which
acts rather like on-the-fly encryption/decryption etc.
One of the handiest features is the progam's ability to securely
overwrite ( or wipe ) any sensitive data, and good safety features in
the event of a system power outage whilst performing any tasks.
Other features include renaming of files, 'work with' and 'view'
options, and a choice of encryption algorithms ( though I suspect the
default Blowfish is more than good enough ).
Drag and drop is supported too, if you want to use a more visual
method of securing your data - and there's an option to put various
tools on your right click context menus in explorer.
From your later posts it seems that you really only need to protect a
few files, and I would think this program ( or one like it ) would be
the best balance between convenience and features.
If you're at all savvy at mucking about with batch or .ini files then
you can hand edit the program's job files to suit your own needs.
I run just one pair of job files that encrypts or decrypts a number of
separate files and folders scattered across several partitions..and
even encrypts the job files themselves!
One nice tip is that you can encrypt ANY file or folder - so if, for
example, you had a folder in your browser favourites containing links
to such seedy sites as world-of-pies.com, or Star-trek-geeks.co.uk -
you could encrypt the entire folder and rename the files, which would
then appear to be empty to anyone else who happened across that folder
when browsing your favourites.
I'm happy to recommend this particular freeware program on the basis
that I've been using it for some years now without any problems
whatsoever.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
traveler <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote in
news:3fjki15j5jdks5fqin3sd1irj05nieua7q@4ax.com:
>
> Hey nimo, what exactly is asp-centric?
>>
Just my bitch about MS forcing its non-standards on the internet. I don't
give a damn if it's just an engine behind the scenes - but I object to it
at the interface level.
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:12:48 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
>
>>>> Sell encrypted file space on a remote server. Call it
>>>> something like "Data Vault".
>>>
>>> Or ibackup, XDrive, BigVault... :)
>>>
>>> Great idea. Several others though so to. Not that it
>>> wouldn't be impossible to compete mind you.
>>
>> But are they just in someone's office server somewhere? I was
>> thinking
>
> No doubt. In fact I'd wager some of them are someone ELSE'S
> server, administered remotely. Wouldn't surprise me in the
> least.
>
>> they'd REALLY be secure if they could offer something that
>> was actually setup inside the vault of a bank. Think of the
>> image that gives people, instead of just a server somewhere.
>
> Cool idea. An obscure rack in some bunker at Los Alamos or
> something would be even more impressive. <g>
>
> That might be a good selling point. Maybe not a bank, but if
> you could build a hard building... hmmm... maybe an old
> missile silo. There's a few for sale here:
>
> http://www.missilebases.com/
> http://www.missilebases.com/properties/
>
> The mind boggles. ;)
>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:04:15 GMT, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> Cool idea. An obscure rack in some bunker at Los Alamos or something would
> be even more impressive. <g>
>
> That might be a good selling point. Maybe not a bank, but if you could
> build a hard building... hmmm... maybe an old missile silo. There's a few
> for sale here:
>
> http://www.missilebases.com/
> http://www.missilebases.com/properties/
>
> The mind boggles. ;)
This is what we proposed to a Business Partner, under consideration as a
secured data center structure.
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:19:58 -0500, Mama Bear wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I'd wager you're not all that concerned with someone seeing
>>> where in the Internet you surf, viewing the hundreds of
>>> pieces of junk mail you get every week, or knowing that your
>>> high Solitaire score is pathetic. <g>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> And your machine was ready for an upgrade before YOU got
>>> it... ;)
>>
>> No, the machine is ok, a AMD XP 1.4 GHz CPU running XP Home
>> edition, with 512 Megs and a 40 gig HD. ( about 22 gig of
>> data and 15 free at present )
>
> I'd say you have more than enough horsepower to handle whole
> disk encryption with no real performance hit. Unless you're
> doing something that pushes the machine to the limit now like
> real time video editing or some of the latest whiz-bang games.
>
> And whole disk is more secure. With container encryption you
> risk some application writing pieces of your encrypted files
> to an unencrypted location of your drive. If the whole drive
> is locked down it's not a concern.
>
>> I'm just not sure how these things work. For example, what if
>> I encrypted the whole HD. Would it take a couple of days of
>> the computer cranking away at it, to get it all done?
>
> I wouldn't think so. I'd guess hours tops, but it's been a
> long while since I messed with whole disk. Someone else can no
> doubt give you a better estimate.
>
> I'd say give it a go. There's freeware/GPL software out there
> that will handle the job just fine, so you're not out anything
> but your time. And whole disk meets your usability criteria
> better than anything else. If you're unhappy, most of them
> will allow you to roll back to your unencrypted state and you
> can try container encryption. Of course as Nemo pointed out,
> backups are ***VITAL***. Nothing is bullet proof, and a
> flicker of your power could render your entire drive
> unrecoverable. :(
>
Another concern; if I do the whole disk, what about Norton Speedisk
or their other utilities? Will things get royally hosed up?
Mama Bear <MamaBear@No-Spam.noo> wrote in news:Xns96D4DBC224443Mama@
216.196.97.142:
> Another concern; if I do the whole disk, what about Norton Speedisk
> or their other utilities? Will things get royally hosed up?
There are two meanings regarding defragging wrt container files: defragging
the contents of the virtual drive (the container) and defragging the
partion/drive on which it resides. Both can be done.
(Some systems require you to dismount the virtual drive before defragging
the drive on which it resides. See, for instance:
Truecrypt,says in its documentation there's no problem with defragging.
Moving on to full (including the OS) HD/partitions there's only one defrag.
It's been a gazillion years since I used speedisk, and I'm not a fan of
Norton programs (except Ghost). However, I can say that Perfectdisk and
Diskkeeper (defrag programs) work fine with full encrypted disks (but, yes,
oddball defraggers that don't respect "immovable" files could cause
trouble) and I would be leery of some of the "offline reboot" features
(e.g. to defrag the MFT, consolidate directories, etc. - but even these
might work). What definitely cause trouble are things that operate on
partition tables, etc (like partitionmagic) or those that want to mess with
the boot track (e.g., Goback, multiboot managers, etc.).
If a defrag program accesses the drives (real or virtual) through Windows
drivers (as it should) then there will be no problems (the encryption
routines are essentially just drivers, spliced in)
But, you'll have a backup anyway, right?, so you can experiment without
fear :-)
Re: Protecting my hard drive? 
Linear Mode
