I will add a recommendation for TrueCrypt, which is considered secure,
very easy to use, and supports hidden volumes, so that even if you are
forced to give out passwords, you can give out passwords that will be
valid, but not show up the content of your real encrypted drive.
It is also portable,
On Thursday 16 September 2010 08:44:07 Shachar Raindel wrote:
I will add a recommendation for TrueCrypt, which is considered secure,
very easy to use, and supports hidden volumes, so that even if you are
forced to give out passwords, you can give out passwords that will be
valid, but not show
Hi,
Thanks, but it looks like we're not on the same page. I'm not looking
for double protection. And I know that in theory, what I want to do is
OK, and that the ciphers are theoretically strong (hoping we don't have
a Debian fiasco II buried somewhere).
My concern in about kernel
Some time ago I did what you've done, but not for some real use - just
for testing. I suggest you run iozone (or other io benchmark) on your
loopback partition and see if anything goes wrong.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Eli Billauer e...@billauer.co.il wrote:
Hi,
Thanks, but it looks
Why does a benchmark tool help me here? I don't care about performance.
I'm more worried about revealing a bug in the kernel, and finding myself
with junk data written to my disk. Or something like that.
Since I have no idea about how things are organized in the kernel, I
also have no clue on
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Eli Billauer e...@billauer.co.il wrote:
Why does a benchmark tool help me here? I don't care about performance. I'm
more worried about revealing a bug in the kernel, and finding myself with
junk data written to my disk. Or something like that.
Its not for
Hi and thanks to those who answered.
Since nobody stood forward and told me I'm going to do something stupid,
I took some courage, and pulled my little stunt. As one could expect, it
worked like a clockwork. I never did an exhaustive test, but settled for
what I really needed to do, which was
