HD erase quickie
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Bella Jones on 6 Apr 2010 13:11 "Graham J" <graham(a)invalid> wrote: > "Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message > news:g0mmr5d2nbi5hpkb690mhh8dgs0gnqvbcj(a)4ax.com... [...] > >> > >>Ah, ok... This RAID thing is a mixed blessing, innit. > > > > Usually you'd replace the dead drive yourself and then take a hammer > > to it, job done. That's how my own RAID kit works. > > > >>How do you trust > >>them not to scan and look for stuff? > > > > Quantity, protocol and apathy. > [snip] > > Unless of course you are of interest to the people at GCHQ in which case > even using a computer would be a risk you should not take ... There isn't anything dodgy on there in that sense. But surely those companies' staff have a good look in case they're looking for the next Gary Glitter... Also, (dumb query), can they see things that are passworded? -- bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 6 Apr 2010 16:00 On 6 Apr 2010 19:43:40 GMT, bella jonez <bellajonez(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >Could they get, for eaxample, my keychain password? Not directly because it's well encrypted, but (if you've got a TM backup on the drive that could be restored to a Mac) there's nothing to stop a brute force dictionary attack. Except the time (minutes to weeks, dependent on how good your password is) and apathy. The apathy is the most convincing argument to me. Cheers - Jaimie -- "People can be educated beyond their intelligence" -- Marilyn vos Savant
From: The Older Gentleman on 6 Apr 2010 16:18 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On 6 Apr 2010 19:43:40 GMT, bella jonez <bellajonez(a)yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >Could they get, for eaxample, my keychain password? > > Not directly because it's well encrypted, but (if you've got a TM > backup on the drive that could be restored to a Mac) there's nothing > to stop a brute force dictionary attack. > > Except the time (minutes to weeks, dependent on how good your password > is) and apathy. The apathy is the most convincing argument to me. > Interesting thread. Thanks, all. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 6 Apr 2010 17:06 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: [snip] > In the same situation, GCHQ would simply arrest you and then imprison > you for refusing to release passwords, btw. GCHQ isn't the home of the British Supra-Legal Secret Police Service, you know. They can't do that. They can give the cops a hint, though. Then the cops'd arrest you based on the evidence they had of your alleged criminal behaviour (should such evidence be available to the cops, that is), hold you in the cells in accordance with the law, then if and when given the go-ahead by the DPP deciding that the case against you was both likely to succeed and was in the public interest, they'd present a case to a court of law and *that* is what'd get you sent down or fined. If in doubt, roast the actual disc platters on a fire. I suspect Gas Mark 9 would do nearly as well. Or you could sand off the data layer then mangle/chop up the platters. Rowland. (not trying to suggest that anyone here at all has anything on their HDDs that could possibly be of interest to GCHQ, beyond their natural desire to know absolutely everything all the time) -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Phil Taylor on 6 Apr 2010 20:22
In article <1jgjrp4.1kgiwxd1j7fp9jN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > [snip] > > > In the same situation, GCHQ would simply arrest you and then imprison > > you for refusing to release passwords, btw. > > GCHQ isn't the home of the British Supra-Legal Secret Police Service, > you know. They can't do that. They can give the cops a hint, though. > > Then the cops'd arrest you based on the evidence they had of your > alleged criminal behaviour (should such evidence be available to the > cops, that is), hold you in the cells in accordance with the law, then > if and when given the go-ahead by the DPP deciding that the case against > you was both likely to succeed and was in the public interest, they'd > present a case to a court of law and *that* is what'd get you sent down > or fined. Has anybody yet been prosecuted for refusing to give up the password for an encrypted file? It would seem that "I've forgotten it" would be a perfect defence. Phil Taylor |