1 |
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? |
2 |
I don't mean to be rude, but you've managed to confuse me ;) |
3 |
|
4 |
You say: |
5 |
>If you used TrueCrypt for this, it would not have to work on top of a |
6 |
>file system. |
7 |
|
8 |
But isn't there always, in any case a filesystem? Which completely or in |
9 |
parts gets encrypted/decrypted by the encryption layer? |
10 |
|
11 |
Then you say: |
12 |
>/dev/your_usb_drive_here and then format it with your file system of |
13 |
>choice (go ext2 if you're comfortable with using the Windows driver |
14 |
>that implements it;) |
15 |
|
16 |
This seems contradictory... |
17 |
|
18 |
As I understand it, I can either have just an encrypted disk, meaning |
19 |
that one or all partitions can be encrypted, with say dm-crypt (or |
20 |
truecrypt). As long as the underlying fs is supported. |
21 |
Or I can use full disc encryption. Which depending on implementation |
22 |
also encrypts all metadata, including the mbr of the disk. For this the |
23 |
fs does not necessarily have to be supported within the encryption |
24 |
layer?! |
25 |
|
26 |
But no matter what I do, I still when decrypting 'find' a filesytem that |
27 |
needs to be supported by my os. |
28 |
|
29 |
Please correct me if I'm wrong! |
30 |
|
31 |
As mentioned somewhere else, I'll just split the disc, first a |
32 |
unencrypted ntfs partition, and then another encrypted partition (ext3 |
33 |
or 4 formatted). |
34 |
As this disc wont be accessed often, this will probably do just fine. |
35 |
If data needs to be moved to the encrypted ext partition, I can do |
36 |
that from linux if need be, and temporarily store it on ntfs. |
37 |
As this isn't anything really critical, and I'm not on the run, this |
38 |
much security lax wont harm, although obviously I'd try to avoid it. |
39 |
|
40 |
Regarding windows support for ext: |
41 |
|
42 |
Why don't you think much of it? |
43 |
I don't like the fact that the more well known implementation isn't |
44 |
opensource nor freesoftware, which the lesser known driver I'm using |
45 |
is. Sadly it seems not getting alot of attention these days. I've been |
46 |
using it for ages now, sofar no problems, performance (read only) is |
47 |
ok. I haven't dared go near write support though... |
48 |
|
49 |
Tom |