«

Yep, and it may not leave any trace at all, consider full disk
encryption, or at least encryption of your personal files as a solution

blackhat wrote:

> Yep, and it may not leave any trace at all, consider full disk encryption,
> or at least encryption of your personal files as a solution

You're missing the point entirely. Whole disk encryption would have
an unacceptably high chance of failure scenario. It does absolutely
nothing to prevent someone from physically copying the drive if they have
that sort of access to the hardware, and having that access means it's a
fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture the keys
to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called "ease".

That you'd suggest a software solution to a physical security problem only
belies your ignorance. What's needed in this case is either a better
"seal", like a vault or safe, or to simply keep possession of the
hardware. There's also a couple other possibilities like a surveillance
"honey pot" that might have something to do with cameras or such....

You I understand, you're a sock puppet wannabe. But I'm honestly a bit
surprised nemo didn't see through to this simple logic. <sigh>

>You're missing the point entirely. Whole disk encryption would have
>an unacceptably high chance of failure scenario. It does absolutely
>nothing to prevent someone from physically copying the drive if they have
>that sort of access to the hardware, and having that access means it's a

They would copy a disk full of encrypted giberish, and if a half decent
encryption program is used wouldn't have access to the information on
the disk

>fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture the keys
>to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called "ease".

They can't install a key logger on an encrypted disk

>That you'd suggest a software solution to a physical security problem only
>belies your ignorance. What's needed in this case is either a better
>"seal", like a vault or safe, or to simply keep possession of the

Not everyone has the luxury of a safe to keep their computer in, I
suppose you do?

>hardware. There's also a couple other possibilities like a surveillance
>"honey pot" that might have something to do with cameras or such....

>You I understand, you're a sock puppet wannabe. But I'm honestly a bit
>surprised nemo didn't see through to this simple logic. <sigh>

You sound like an ignorant troll because you are.

Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote in
news: d.net:

> blackhat wrote:
>
>> Yep, and it may not leave any trace at all, consider full disk
>> encryption, or at least encryption of your personal files as a
>> solution
>
> You're missing the point entirely. Whole disk encryption would have
> an unacceptably high chance of failure scenario. It does absolutely
> nothing to prevent someone from physically copying the drive if they
> have that sort of access to the hardware, and having that access means
> it's a fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture
> the keys to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called
> "ease".
>
> That you'd suggest a software solution to a physical security problem
> only belies your ignorance. What's needed in this case is either a
> better "seal", like a vault or safe, or to simply keep possession of
> the hardware. There's also a couple other possibilities like a
> surveillance "honey pot" that might have something to do with cameras
> or such....
>
> You I understand, you're a sock puppet wannabe. But I'm honestly a bit
> surprised nemo didn't see through to this simple logic. <sigh>



If you revisit my first post in this thread you will note that physical
security through control and custody was my primary recommendation; full HD
OTFE encryption was mentioned as an additional level of protection.

Regards,

PS Full HD encryption gives (nearly) complete protection against software
keyloggers, or reading or modification of data (including the OS and
related structures as well as user data). It cannot, of course, protect
against compromises in hardware (e.g., hardware keyloggers, compromised
BIOS, etc.)

Actually I copy HDD all the time. I boot the PC off of a USB drive
running damn small linux, then clone the drive to USB mass storage. I
can then pick through the disk at my time.

wrote in news:1138155636.360222.206820
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Actually I copy HDD all the time. I boot the PC off of a USB drive
> running damn small linux, then clone the drive to USB mass storage. I
> can then pick through the disk at my time.
>
>



If someone has had the foresight to use full HD OTFE encryption you will
find this a most unrewarding pursuit. ...which is precisely why I
recommend it.

Regards,

nemo_outis wrote:

>> That you'd suggest a software solution to a physical security problem
>> only belies your ignorance. What's needed in this case is either a
>> better "seal", like a vault or safe, or to simply keep possession of the
>> hardware. There's also a couple other possibilities like a surveillance
>> "honey pot" that might have something to do with cameras or such....
>>
>> You I understand, you're a sock puppet wannabe. But I'm honestly a bit
>> surprised nemo didn't see through to this simple logic. <sigh>
>
> If you revisit my first post in this thread you will note that physical
> security through control and custody was my primary recommendation; full
> HD OTFE encryption was mentioned as an additional level of protection.

I must have missed that. The server I'm pulling from is having problems at
the moment. Like I said, I would have been surprised if you'd not at least
addressed physical security.

> PS Full HD encryption gives (nearly) complete protection against software
> keyloggers, or reading or modification of data (including the OS and

Which is why I plainly said "device"....

> related structures as well as user data). It cannot, of course, protect
> against compromises in hardware (e.g., hardware keyloggers, compromised
> BIOS, etc.)

Of course. And in the scenario at hand physical compromise /is/ the
problem. The OP didn't even really ask about protecting data, except as a
side effect of recognizing potential physical threat. Encryption of any
type is essentially useless in that poster's scenario.

The only exception I might see is OTFE with some sort of "smart card" or
ephemeral authentication. I could ALMOST go along with a solution where an
authentication stream couldn't be duplicated. Not just a "keys on thumb
drive" scenario because they too can be "logged".

blackhat wrote:

>>You're missing the point entirely. Whole disk encryption would have an
>>unacceptably high chance of failure scenario. It does absolutely nothing
>>to prevent someone from physically copying the drive if they have that
>>sort of access to the hardware, and having that access means it's a
>
> They would copy a disk full of encrypted giberish, and if a half decent
> encryption program is used wouldn't have access to the information on the
> disk

Unless they also had the keys to that encryption, typically a pass phrase,
which is where a device that captures pass phrases just might come in
handy. Don'tcha think?

>>fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture the keys
>>to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called "ease".
>
> They can't install a key logger on an encrypted disk

Did you fail to see the word "device", are you too illiterate to
comprehend its meaning, or are you just too damned dishonest to admit
that someone with access to a piece of hardware housing an encrypted disk
would logically use such a device to circumvent that encryption?

Seriously. I'm genuinely curious. You going with blind, dumb, or just flat
out lying here?

>>That you'd suggest a software solution to a physical security problem
>>only belies your ignorance. What's needed in this case is either a better
>>"seal", like a vault or safe, or to simply keep possession of the
>
> Not everyone has the luxury of a safe to keep their computer in, I suppose
> you do?

Matter of fact yes I do, but that's beside the point. The question was
about securing something that's physically vulnerable to compromise
regardless of any disk encryption. The answer to a physical vulnerability
generally isn't an "ephemeral" software solution. It's CERTAINLY not in
this scenario anyway.

If the hardware is worth securing then the proper physical solutions will
be applied or the hardware and its data will be at risk. Again, simple
math. Just no way around the facts, sorry about your luck.

>>hardware. There's also a couple other possibilities like a surveillance
>>"honey pot" that might have something to do with cameras or such....
>
>>You I understand, you're a sock puppet wannabe. But I'm honestly a bit
>>surprised nemo didn't see through to this simple logic. <sigh>
>
> You sound like an ignorant troll because you are.

How does it feel to be so easily and thoroughly proven an incompetent
buffoon by an ignorant troll? To have "ignorance" be your master?

>>>Unless they also had the keys to that encryption, typically a pass phrase,
>>>which is where a device that captures pass phrases just might come in
>>>handy. Don'tcha think?

No, if you use the proper encryption program it will take the password
before the boot and windows loading in, any key logger won't be in
operation yet... don't cha think? Missed that one did you, lol

>>fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture the keys
>>to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called "ease".

> They can't install a key logger on an encrypted disk

>>>Did you fail to see the word "device", are you too illiterate to
>>>comprehend its meaning, or are you just too damned dishonest to admit
>>>that someone with access to a piece of hardware housing an encrypted disk
>>>would logically use such a device to circumvent that encryption?

It's usually a fool or a real dishonest troll that starts calling
names, anyway as I mentioned there are very capable encryption programs
out there that can provide protection against loggers and other
concerns, but only if the logger isn't already on the machine. If it
is, it has to be detected and removed before any encryption.

>>>Seriously. I'm genuinely curious. You going with blind, dumb, or just flat
>>>out lying here?

Neither, but I think you are, have a nice day!

blackhat wrote:

>>>>Unless they also had the keys to that encryption, typically a pass
>>>>phrase, which is where a device that captures pass phrases just might
>>>>come in handy. Don'tcha think?
>
> No, if you use the proper encryption program it will take the password
> before the boot and windows loading in, any key logger won't be in
> operation yet... don't cha think? Missed that one did you, lol

Uh, dumbass.... hardware keyloggers don't give a flying **** about
Windows, booting, or what's in or not in "operation" except MAYBE for a
power supply.

And you talk about someone else "missing something"?

<chuckle>

Whata moron!

>>>fair bet they would install a logging device that would capture the keys
>>>to unlock the stolen data with what can only be called "ease".
>
>> They can't install a key logger on an encrypted disk
>
>>>>Did you fail to see the word "device", are you too illiterate to
>>>>comprehend its meaning, or are you just too damned dishonest to admit
>>>>that someone with access to a piece of hardware housing an encrypted
>>>>disk would logically use such a device to circumvent that encryption?
>
> It's usually a fool or a real dishonest troll that starts calling names,

Maybe, but not this time. You're an idiot. An incompetent dimbulb spewing
useless advice when you haven't a single clue, and you just got through
demonstrating that fact with your special brand of practiced deftness for
about the 186,901,271st time.

Even neophytes with a moderate interest in security quickly grasp
basic concepts like software being essentially defenseless against an
attacker with access to the hardware it's running on, but here YOU are
defending the ridiculously indefensible not once, but 3 or 4 times now.
Just like some retarded record player skipping on "I'm a fukwit!".

> anyway as I mentioned there are very capable encryption programs out there
> that can provide protection against loggers and other concerns, but only
> if the logger isn't already on the machine. If it is, it has to be
> detected and removed before any encryption.
>
>>>>Seriously. I'm genuinely curious. You going with blind, dumb, or just
>>>>flat out lying here?
>
> Neither, but I think you are, have a nice day!

I am, believe me. Every time I get the chance to grind one of you addle
minded trolls under my heel it's a dandy day indeed.

Now make it complete by coming back with some more of your head shaking
stupidity. Or better yet, dive head long into some more of your one-line,
third rate attempts at insulting someone. You know it's all you have left,
so dance for me some more...... sockpuppet.