| 1 |
> > > > > On a notebook, there isn't an OS in existence that is immune |
| 2 |
> > > > > to a LiveCD. |
| 3 |
> > > > |
| 4 |
> > > > Linux is. In the sense that you can't get at the data if the |
| 5 |
> > > > disc is encrypted, even not with a LiveCD. You can only |
| 6 |
> > > > destroy/overwrite it. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Yes, I realised that when typing the original, but left it as is |
| 9 |
> > > - too many IF conditionals would be needed to be accurate and |
| 10 |
> > > English is almost useless at getting IFs to parse correctly :-) |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Passwords come from a time when users had terminals that log |
| 13 |
> > > onto machines that are somewhere else and the user can't lay a |
| 14 |
> > > finger on them. Things have indeed changed since 1978 |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Would the type of filesystem encryption you guys are talking about |
| 17 |
> > be unsuitable for a high-traffic server because of performance |
| 18 |
> > considerations? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Yes, and it isn't necessary. You lock your servers away so that nobody |
| 21 |
> has physical access to them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sounds like co-location right? I just have a hosted dedicated |
| 24 |
machine. The thing that's always kept me from co-locating is hardware |
| 25 |
failure. That would be a "my problem" in a co-located environment |
| 26 |
rather than a "their problem" right? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- Grant |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> It's only interesting for workstations, laptops and external storage |
| 32 |
> devices. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Uwe |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives