|
Posted by bjn on May 6, 2006, 12:47 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>bjn wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:32:11 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
>>
>>> The basic premise that I hold is that real security stops when the
>>> thief can physically get a hold of the machine. Not 100% true but
>>> mostly true.
>> Well, how "true" that is depends upon what level of security you need.
>By and large and for all intents and purposes here for a simply home
>user with Quicken - it's true.
Too many disclaimers in that sentence for it to be of any use.
>> For example, 256-bit AES encryption is used by the US Government for
>> Top Secret messages, yet those messages do not always remain in the
>> physical possession of the US Gov.
>This is not the NSA, we're not talking spies here ya know.
Correct, we were not taling about spies, we were talking about computer
security. I was merely illustrating how your comment was an exaggeration.
Since you agreed with me that you exaggerated, ....
>> True, nothing is ever 100% secure (even if you retain physical
>> security of your PC) but your assertion is a bit exaggerated.
>Exactly
So we agree that you exaggerated.
>> Since the free, open-source TrueCrypt product (mentioned earlier by me
>> and someone else) has 256-bit AES encryption ability, there's really
>> little reason not to use that level of encryption.
>Actually there's really little reason to use it considering the chances
>of it being needed. Then again I've always found it extremely difficult
>to reason with paranoid people because if there's one tiny iota of a
>chance they will constantly argue without. It's like trying to explain
>to advid lottery players that they odds are really slim....
Security is always a balance of how much do you need vs. how much trouble
you have to go through to obtain it. Some of the security products are
surprisingly easy to set up and use, and do not get in the way of your
routines.
Your attempt to divert the discussion to paranoia merely illustrates how
little you know about the topic.
>> btw, Apple's OS-X uses 128-bit AES for its built-in file and drive
>> encryption.
>Whop T Do!
It was just a little side commentary. It's a shame your ego seems to get
in the way of your message all the time.
>> One thing about Windows NTFS encryption - only the exact user account
>> that created the files can access them. If you delete your user
>> account, and recreate the account with the exactly same username, you
>> will not be able to see your encrypted files because your new account
>> was not the exact account that created them.
>That's why you back things up.
Backups may not help in this area. Unless, of course, you back up
unencrypted copies. That, then, opens up another possible security hole.
>> Think about this when you think about wipe and restore of hard disks.....
>Quite frankly, I don't think in terms of wiping and restoring hard disks...
That's ashame. Even Microsoft is telling Windows users that the only way
to eliminate some spyware is to erase and reformat the disk. Do you really
think you should take such a lackadaisical approach to others' data?
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap