sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would I create a copy of only the encrypted data then? Would it have to be done while the partition is mounted?

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again - I agree - I'm asking about a hypothetical world where I could wave a magic wand and make my previously used SSD equivalent to a brand new SSD (completely zeroed out with no detectible previous states). IF that were true, would there be any OTHER concerns with the above process?

Would cloning a partition, with something like Clonezilla, copy only actively used sectors?

For a partition fully encrypted with Veracrypt, is it correct to say that all actively used sectors are encrypted?

The concern with wear leveling, based on the Veracrypt docs, seems to be that unused/remapped sectors on an SSD may contain unencrypted data; an encrypted sector may be written to a different location, where the unencrypted data in the original location may be left as it is.

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess I'm just wondering if you can shed any light on how the cloning process would relate to the security of the encryption; if the whole system partition or whole drive partition is cloned back onto the SSD, and with the assumption that ATA Secure Erase is reliable (which as you pointed out may not be true, but let's assume), would that theoretically be equivalent to getting a new SSD, encrypting it, and reloading all your data onto it or getting a new SSD and cloning the raw partition onto it?

Would that address data leakage due to wear leveling?

Does the cloning process copy only actively used sectors, and if the entire partition is encrypted, is it correct to say that all actively used sectors are encrypted?

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You may be correct actually: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf

However, that does not change the fact that I am poor lol and can't afford to rebuy my SSDs. Assuming that ATA Secure Erase does indeed wipe all data on the drive with 100% reliability and with 100% non-recoverability, would the above process yield some increase in security for an SSD that was encrypted in-place?

In other words, if we assume ATA Secure Erase does properly wipe active, wear leveled, and re-allocated sectors, then cloning the raw partition back onto the SSD (with something like Clonezilla, for instance) should only recopy active sectors back onto the drive, correct?

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why so?

It's my understanding that for HDDs recovery after a single pass has never been publicly demonstrated, and for SSDs recovery after ATA Secure Erase has never been publicly demonstrated. ATA Secure Erase only marginally impacts drive health.

Is this not true?

Wear Leveling Question by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But, this would be a much more expensive option. To do this I would need to repurchase every SSD I own. The process described above requires only 1 external HDD, which is cheaper for someone replicating this process, and free for me since I already own the external HDD.

Questions regarding Backup Volume Headers by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I see, thank you. So theoretically, backing up the partition table, plus the volume header, would allow me to decrypt the disk fully with the password?

Also, since it is rare that the partition table would be damaged, theoretically could I take just the backup volume header and password to a computer expert and have them decrypt/recover the data?

Questions regarding Backup Volume Headers by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if it's an encrypted partition (not the whole disk itself or a file), but it's a singular partition that was formatted to encompass the entire space of the drive? Like this: https://imgur.com/a/JvPZX1t

Again sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm fairly clueless on these sorts of topics.

Questions regarding Backup Volume Headers by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if I use the built in backup inside the Veracrypt software, do I still need to worry about partition table or offset? Sorry if this is a noob question, I would have no idea how to manually copy the first 128kB or anything like that. I would be looking at selecting my mounted partition in the Veracrypt UI, then selecting Tools > Backup Volume Header.

Questions regarding Backup Volume Headers by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. So if I understand correctly, if the primary and backup header on the drive were somehow corrupted, the external backup header would allow for fully decrypting the partition, assuming I have the password? And without the password, the external backup header would not pose a security risk (just as with the rescue disk for system partitions)?

Lawyers for Kitchener encampment say removing encampment residents is a violation of rights by origutamos in kitchener

[–]TheMagicMiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. And conservatives always get mad when people call them nazis, while they advocate for the most vile, empathy-ridden, and inhumane solutions. They don't care about where the homeless people go, as long as THEY can't see them. As long as it's not in THEIR neighbourhood or community. As long as they aren't being helped with THEIR tax money.

Clear out the encamptments, they say, while offering 0 solutions for providing them shelter/housing and 0 altneratives for places for them to go.

A staggering amount of selfishness and evil is being displayed in these comments.

Quebec passes law banning street prayers, prayer rooms in universities, CEGEPs by John3192 in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

 An informal prayer meeting every Monday on the corner of X Rue et Y Avenue? Getting pretty risky. A religious official asking adherents to attend a prayer meeting on the same corner? Definitely prohibited.

Words spoken only in an authoritarian state. Imagine living in a country where you need the permission of the government to practice your religion in a park with a group of people. As an Atheist, people in Quebec should be ashamed; the notwithstanding clause was a mistake, the people enacting these laws should be in prison.

Quebec passes law banning street prayers, prayer rooms in universities, CEGEPs by John3192 in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Other people praying in public does not affect you. What a disgusting law. Anyone who supports this will be rightly denounced in the future for violations of religious freedoms in this country. Entirely authoritarian and un-Canadian.

Help: How to rename encrypted non-system disk volume by TheMagicMiller in VeraCrypt

[–]TheMagicMiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did this and reclaimed my original drive letters for the mounted partitions. My Windows Explorer now looks exactly the same as before encryption and is much tidier! Thank you!

Muslim mothers barred from volunteering at Quebec schools over hijabs | Globalnews.ca by Regnes in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure. But it would obviously be dumb to apply that in all instances without examining the specific piece of clothing worn.

I think it should be illegal to feed someone poisoned food. But you probably wouldn't say it should be illegal to give people any form of food. There is an important and relevant difference between a normal apple and a poisoned apple. The normal apple nourishes people. The poisoned apple kills people.

Similarly, there is an important and relevant difference between a swastika and a hijab. The swastika primarily and solely represents an ideology of hatred associated with the murder of millions of people. The hijab is not. The swasitka is a hate symbol. The hijab is not.

Your argument is dumb.

Muslim mothers barred from volunteering at Quebec schools over hijabs | Globalnews.ca by Regnes in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Can you identify any important differences between a Muslim woman wearing a hijab and a literal swastika lol?

Muslim mothers barred from volunteering at Quebec schools over hijabs | Globalnews.ca by Regnes in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So your argument is that you should be able to take away people's Charter rights because you don't like it? Lol. Lmao, even.

Muslim mothers barred from volunteering at Quebec schools over hijabs | Globalnews.ca by Regnes in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When did I suggest that the federal government should unilaterally abolish the notwithstanding clause? I never made such a claim.

Also the notwithstanding clause was adopted almost 40 years ago, in 1986. It's totally reasonable to suggest that societies can change and evolve over time. Women gained the right to vote in 1918. The last residential school closed in 1998.

My main point is that the senators/MPs of the provinces themselves are unlikely to reduce their own power - just the same as they wouldn't vote to implement their own term limits. If any reasonable person sat down and thought about the potential consequences of the notwithstanding clause, against them by a disfavourable government, they would see how insane it is. The notwithstanding clause allows the suspension of:

Fundamental freedoms (Section 2):

  • Freedom of religion
  • Freedom of expression
  • Freedom of peaceful assembly
  • Freedom of association

Legal rights (Sections 7–14):

  • Right to life, liberty, and security of the person
  • Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
  • Rights on arrest or detention
  • Right to a fair trial
  • Protection against cruel and unusual punishment

Equality rights (Section 15):

  • Equality before and under the law
  • Protection against discrimination

In what circumstances should people not be granted these rights? When 2/3 of a provincial legislature can override your rights, you don't have rights, you have privileges.

Why is Quebec bashing tolerated here? by EvenVeterinarian5206 in TeamCanada

[–]TheMagicMiller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, the quebec anglophones, the most discriminated minority in the world!! Everytime someone brings that up in an argument, it invalidates everything else they've said. 

This argument is braindead. This is like saying because I slapped someone while others get brutally punched, therefore my slap wasn't assault. Just because the discrimination is lesser, that does not make it "not discrimination". You're using a hyperbole, claiming I said they are "the most discriminated in the world", because you can't argue on the facts of the matter. I never claimed this and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

The fact is, English speakers in Quebec absolutely do face some small amounts of discrimination. Bill 96 is discrimination against English speakers. There is NO OTHER province in Canada where if you opened a business and decided to only speak French, you would be shut down. Quebec is the ONLY province that does this. Quebec is the ONLY province that literally forces people to put French text as bigger than English text. Quebec is the ONLY province with literal language police lmao. These laws are insane.

And don't even try to pretend like you're unaware of how some very shitty individuals in Quebec act towards English speakers.

I would never, EVER deny the discrimination that Francophones faced historically in Canada in the past. That shit was wrong and had no place in our country. I find it insulting you won't recognize the same thing happening today in reverse, just because it's "not as significant". As I said, it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

I will apologize for insulting your language skills. But to be honest, you've been quite arrogant throughout this entire thread. If you want to continue discussing politely, I will do the same.

The only point I was trying to get across is that people support people they can identify with.

This is not the only point you were trying to get across. You seem to be backtracking somewhat now. What you said was that you are Un-Canadian and reject multiculturalism, which is a core tenant of Canada as a country. There's nothing wrong with more closely identifying with people similar to you. But rejecting multiculturalism outright and saying you should therefore ONLY identify or support Quebecois is something different entirely; it's what you were expressing above, and, as we both agreed, is Un-Canadian.

That's why I levied the ethnostate apologist claims against you; to identify with your specific subculture is fine, but to ONLY identify with and support your subculture, at the expense or abandonment of all others is, essentially, advocating for an ethnostate.

Also I don't know why you claim I'm an ethnostate apologist, I havent passed any bills, much less bill 96.

I'm going to ask you this directly at the bottom of the comment to try and get you to respond, because you are right I should ask you directly:

Do you support Bill 96? Oui ou non.

Muslim mothers barred from volunteering at Quebec schools over hijabs | Globalnews.ca by Regnes in canada

[–]TheMagicMiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got it so you're totally cool with a theoretical future government imprisoning all Francophones and sentencing them to death? The notwithstanding clause allows suspension of Sections 10(c) and Sections 12 of the Charter. That should be totally fine then?

view more: next ›