I'm trying to figure out how whole disk encryption is "desirable - mostly in terms of backups". How is that the case?
Is the issue key management? User data stored outside encrypted directories? Concerns about OS integrity? For Windows users especially, often solutions are driven by the difficulty of balancing functionality in the system for deployment (including your PKI) vs. the complexity. We are all pretty familiar with the tools that educated end-users can use (those you outlined). But, the tools that provide more functionality and control are a magnitude more complex and expensive both to acquire and learn. For example, Microsoft's BitBlocker technology and the products from PGPs line (now, of course, owned by Symantec). Complexity also comes from integrating into Active Directory. I'd be interested to understand what the real driver is here, in particular what the issues are with the (free) tools you mentioned. Can't understand how backups are part of this. _KMP On 21Aug10, at 13:08 , Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Presently, I have Mac and Windows laptop users. The mac users use encrypted > sparsebundles, and the windows users use TrueCrypt for encryption. There are > a lot of reasons whole disk encryption would be desirable - mostly in terms > of backups. > > There are a lot of whole disk encryption solutions out there. I can simply > stab into the dark and start trying them ... But I thought perhaps I could > benefit from experiences that have been had already... > > Anybody care to offer their experiences? > _______________________________________________ > bblisa mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa -- K. M. Peterson voice: +1 617 731 6177 Boston, Massachusetts, USA fax: +1 206 338 6427 Full contact information at http://kmpeterson.com/contact.html
_______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [email protected] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
