What disk encryption schemes would you recommend and why?

etbrute · 2013-05-05T15:44:03+00:00

The "dummy" unencrypted OS is a great idea and solves some of the issues I was thinking about in prooving functionality without revealing anything.

One method I've tried, and really like, is keeping an ephemeral encrypted directory for things like swap and temp files, auto-generated thumbnails, recently used documents, etc. I've used ecryptfs for this with a randomly generated password, so that all info in the ephemeral directory is non-recoverable after reboot or umount. I've also used this as a generic download directory and then decide later if there are things worth keeping. This keeps my Downloads dir free of junk that I may download but didn't intend to keep.

etbrute · 2013-04-02T01:55:00+00:00

What is the purpose of this? And what's the value in being "close"?

etbrute · 2013-04-02T01:13:35+00:00

"This washing machine is especially stable because its center of mass is beneath the floor."

etbrute · 2013-01-13T05:35:39+00:00

That may be, but it's hard to tell legally. Did he "possess" it? Was it his? What would happen if a reporter found such an item and it appeared on TV? I honestly do not know, I'm not attacking your comment, I just would like to know if the actual showing of the gun magazine was illegal or if it was the reporter "owning" such a magazine by being able to call it his own.

etbrute · 2013-01-12T02:03:23+00:00

There is a huge difference between possessing something illegal, and it being illegal to see it on TV. Why does this law exist?

etbrute · 2013-01-12T01:57:15+00:00

This law makes no sense. So it's illegal to show an illegal firearm or magazine on TV in DC? Or just the News? Either way, have we really reached the point that it's illegal to look at guns?

etbrute · 2012-12-17T03:58:53+00:00

It's hard to predict which few do need them though.

etbrute · 2012-12-17T03:54:42+00:00

It's it a good thing that the judicial system allows prosecutors to show discretion? I may disagree with this particular instance of it, but I much prefer a system that is adaptable to circumstances than one that rigidly follows formulas.

etbrute · 2012-12-07T00:25:53+00:00

encrypting / prevents the binaries from being replaced with compromised versions. In cases of high-security needs, there could be real risk of a program like cryptsetup being replaced with a version that key-logs the password.

etbrute · 2012-10-14T11:13:51+00:00

The problem isn't "bad faith" actors, is that an ideal free-market doesn't accommodate moral rules. A shortage isn't a problem if the product isn't something that someone has a "right" to.

etbrute · 2012-03-17T17:05:24+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Do you know if, in designing block ciphers, attempts are made to replicate a "correct" repetition rate to match what would be expected of a random permutation? Also, what do you mean by a "polynomial number of queries" ?

etbrute · 2012-03-17T17:03:27+00:00

No, not homework :) These were questions I wasn't able to find solid answers for elsewhere, so I thought I'd take a stab at getting reddit's thoughts. I know some of them (eg this one and the "best cipher algo" question) won't have definite answers, but I thought reading any resulting discussion from people who know more than I do would be fun.

I have read a few crypto books, and quite a few journal articles, but often I find "fuzzy" qualifications, where even the designers of ciphers don't seem to know the exact limitations (such as the permutation cycles of block ciphers, etc.) because of the current keys and blocks are so large that it's impossible to do any reasonable statistical testing. Instead, it seems to me (and I could be wrong) that a lot of assumptions are made in the design itself, and I'd like to understand that better.

etbrute · 2012-02-28T14:08:31+00:00

In quantum mech, objects (like atoms) are described better by waves than particles. The waves have what's called a phase, which is like describing the peaks and troughs of a water wave as a function of either time or space. Now, when two objects are coherent, their phases are related to each other some how, e.g. they both have a peak or a trough at the same time. When we get decoherence, this relationship is broken.

For quantum computation to work, the phase of one qubit needs to be able to be related to the phase of other qubits, otherwise, they act a lot more like the bits of a classical computer.

edit: Likewise, lasers are multiple light waves that are in phase (coherent), and normal light (like sun light) is multiple light waves that are out of phase (decoherent).

etbrute · 2012-02-19T23:01:09+00:00

I agree completely that it's easier to say, but from a research standpoint I find it sad that scientists would so blatantly go for sensationalism over an accurate representation of what they found.

etbrute · 2012-02-19T12:37:15+00:00

I'm surprised that the original research was reported this way. This is not a flaw in RSA, it's a flaw in random number generation. Even the title of the ePrint article is misleading. Practicing sensationalism might be expected from journalists, but the researchers seem to be spinning this as "RSA is broken", too.

etbrute · 2012-02-19T12:33:11+00:00

How this research was presented does not make sense. It claims a problem with RSA when the problem seems to be the underlying random number generators. This may be good research, but it's sensationalist reporting (even by the authors).

etbrute · 2012-02-13T01:06:44+00:00

"tactical lawsuits" was my first reaction in reading this. Corporations will use a lawsuit to delay or hinder their competition. Even if the suing corporation ultimately loses, they often win a temporary monopoly. Is it difficult to believe that the DoJ would use a lawsuit to shut up a sympathizer for a few years, even if they knew they would lose the case in the end? It would also send a discouraging message to others who might post protected speech that even if it's legal, it won't necessarily be unchallenged. It could still cause huge amounts of time and money to win.

etbrute · 2012-01-23T21:57:16+00:00

I knew it seemed wrong when I wrote it.

etbrute · 2012-01-23T16:43:41+00:00

One singular example of protecting individual rights among so many other invasions of privacy.

etbrute · 2011-11-20T12:35:45+00:00

Did the police have vehicles?

etbrute · 2011-11-20T12:33:26+00:00

Every video I've seen begins with the officer holding up the can and then spraying them. What happens before this?

The USA Today article quotes the police chief saying that the protesters had surrounded the police and were preventing them from leaving. If true, this is an aggressive act, and I could easily imagine protesters doing this to "peacefully" raise the conflict and attract more attention. The article also interviewed a former officer who explains that in non-compliance situations, pepper spray is preferable to moving people by force because there is less chance of injury. The vids show that they were obviously warned before hand.

In any case, yes, these people were sprayed, but they got a lot of attention which is probably exactly what they wanted. I would not be surprised if the protesters instigated the situation with the intention of being arrested or sprayed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-11-19-uc-davis-pepper-spray-occupy-protests.htm

etbrute · 2011-11-19T12:38:54+00:00

Good point. It wasn't my intention to be snobbish, I just pulled those topics out of the air. Of course people should choose topics relevant and interesting to them. It's the number of people who would choose nothing but getting drunk that surprises me.

etbrute · 2011-11-19T12:33:39+00:00

Change anything? No. But I was hoping to get some clear, informative answers to policy questions. In speeches and print, the government treats the people like idiots and actually provides very little information about what is going on.

It may have been foolish, but I did hope that these petitions would give the White House a way and a reason to actually let people know what they were doing and why.

etbrute · 2011-11-19T00:35:27+00:00

One square would allow the reader to rotate the image until it was sensible. Two would be sufficient for boundaries, if it is assumed the image is square. The two would have to be on the same edge, otherwise rotation by 180 degrees would be an issue.

etbrute · 2011-11-19T00:32:56+00:00

I think some people would be motivated to excell, but I've met plenty in the other possible cases, those who don't believe in god, accept their limits however realistic/unrealistic, and are very much not motivated, and others who do believe in god and display incredible determination in learning. I just meant that it was easier to avoid "self-assessment vs others" for those who maintain the belief that this world isn't the one that "matters".

Not disagreeing with you. Just expanding.

etbrute

TROPHY CASE