Re: Re: Re: Why isn't full disk encryption from manufactures aslam dunk?

[gjgowey () tmo blackberry net]

That's in a hacking scenario.  The best thing that this encryption can do is reasonably secure the information when the 
hard drive is being transported elsewhere or disposed of.  Ideally these harddrives should have the equivalent of a 
bios reset jumper to "forget" the key when they're off or defective beyond startup.  Removing the key won't lose the 
data by itself (useful if moving the drive from one location to another), but putting another key in and low-level 
formatting the drive then dumping that key will definitely make the drive safe for disposal or resale.

Geoff
 
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: empfour () hotmail com

Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:16:37 
To:security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't full disk encryption from manufactures a
 slam dunk?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1


Well as you know, for example, the US government has now started to require companies to publish and inform when 
electronic breaks-in and theft occur.


While conceptually encryption is secure, it is the implementation of it which comes into question.  Realistically when 
a crypto-cracker starts his work, the first thing he is going to do is find out not only what kind of encryption is 
being used, but also what product was used to implement it.  This is to locate any vulnerabilities in certain versions 
of certain products which can be exploited to break in.  The next thing he is going to do is run through a list of 
commonly used passwords and perform a dictionary-based attack to take advantage of a possibly weak password.  After 
that, he might start looking into aspects of the user(s) who using the security to determine commonly used pieces of 
information such as dates, names of family/friends/pets, and so forth.  If this information is not readily available on 
the Internet, a determined person can always "dumpster dive".  Who knows, perhaps the user wrote it down somewhere?  As 
I said, it is the implementation which is the we
 akpoint.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)


iD8DBQFG8fVLbewdQwZMkngRAleIAJ0bz8x7LJYiYwB0EhsyNNOyuI6s0gCbBpYS

jBLY1aa/c472li+YnRDcfKM=

=VFYf

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----