Putting passwords in a properties file?
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: Some projects were hidden because they exist in the workspace directory
Next: light weight types
From: rossum on 2 Oct 2009 11:10 On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:45:19 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >rossum wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:23:41 -0400, Dave Searles >> <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>> Least-intrusive there is to break in >> [says I'm a liar] I pointed out a non-intrusive way to obtain the data that you might not have thought of. The attacker can always think of things that you have not thought of. > >Whaaaaat? > >No way! How is my scenario impossible? rossum
From: rossum on 2 Oct 2009 11:12 On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:48:16 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >Ken wrote: >> [says I'm a liar] > >I am not. > >> I can think of a few very efficient ways of taking all the data without >> anyone being the wiser. The most efficient of all is simply swapping >> drives. > >They'll notice the replacement drive is missing all their data. You'd >have to copy the whole thing while there to avoid that, in which case >you might as well leave with the copy, not the original. Here I agree with you. Make a copy while leaving the original drive in place. The data will be more valuable if the owner does not know that it has been copied. rossum
From: Ken on 2 Oct 2009 14:08 On Oct 2, 9:12 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:48:16 -0400, Dave Searles > > <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >Ken wrote: > >> [says I'm a liar] > > >I am not. > > >> I can think of a few very efficient ways of taking all the data without > >> anyone being the wiser. The most efficient of all is simply swapping > >> drives. > > >They'll notice the replacement drive is missing all their data. You'd > >have to copy the whole thing while there to avoid that, in which case > >you might as well leave with the copy, not the original. > > Here I agree with you. Make a copy while leaving the original drive > in place. The data will be more valuable if the owner does not know > that it has been copied. > > rossum Depends some of the most valuable data has very good long term value. After all at these lengths there is no need to get the keys, they just go straight for the ends. If however they are after intercepting on going communications then you are talking about pretty sophisticated criminals... more likely some spy agency. Then the physical counter measures would be beyond legal, requiring sirens... not so you know that the server is being broken into but so can flee the 3000 degree Celsius explosion that is going to take place in the server room.
From: Dave Searles on 3 Oct 2009 00:24 rossum wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:45:19 -0400, Dave Searles > <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >> rossum wrote: >>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:23:41 -0400, Dave Searles >>> <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>> Least-intrusive there is to break in >>> [says I'm a liar] > I pointed out I don't care. I am NOT a liar, and that is the end of the subject! >> Whaaaaat? >> >> No way! > How is my scenario impossible? It is impossible that I could be a liar. From that, it follows that your statement implying that I am one must be false.
From: Dave Searles on 3 Oct 2009 00:25
rossum wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:48:16 -0400, Dave Searles > <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> They'll notice the replacement drive is missing all their data. You'd >> have to copy the whole thing while there to avoid that, in which case >> you might as well leave with the copy, not the original. > I agree with you. Make a copy while leaving the original drive > in place. The data will be more valuable if the owner does not know > that it has been copied. Now if you can get it remotely, so much the better; even if the computers in the machine room seem intact, if there are pry-marks at the side of the door and the lock is broken that might make some people suspicious, *particularly* if nothing is actually missing. :) |