[Gllug] Editors

[David Freeman]

 --- home at alexhudson.com wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 05:41:23PM
+0100, David Freeman wrote:
> > > Why? I don't see it makes any sense at all, actually ;)
> > 
> > Oh it does, a small amount of parania is healthy. I beleive Phil
> > Zimmerman has alot to say on the wide spread use of crytography.
> 
> I don't see that security == paranoia. I see paranoia as being more
> the use
> of time for ventures entirely unnecessary. Perhaps just my
> interpretation..

Perhaps. Parania can lead to needless expendiature of effort, some
times is does not.

> > I am paranoid mainly as I take my machine to a number of LUG meets
> where
> > at times it is left unattended. As such I would not like someone
> able to
> > gothrough my disk drive.
> 
> That's not necessarily paranoia - if you have data which is sensitive
> to
> you, personal, then there's no reason why that should be accessible
> to
> others.

It parania as as yet no one has tried, I just don't want to give people
the chance.
 
> > Or limit the number of possible times that the plain text is
> stored.
> > Given enough memory it is possible for the data to not be stored in
> VM.
> 
> The data goes in VM _however_ much RAM you have I'm afraid (virtual
> memory
> is more than just swap space!! :). But I don't think that's what you
> mean ;)

What I mean and what I said are totally different, I just can't work
out what I meant with this.
 
> > Can Swap space be turned on and off? 
> 
> swapoff [part]
> 
> Not recommended though. 

Why is it not recommended?
 
> > Does anyone know how I can force the kernel to not use VM for
> certain
> > applications? (I have 384MB RAM)
> 
> Not for applications AFAIK - but it is certainly possible for an
> application
> to state that pages should be locked in RAM.

Can you say that again slowly?
   
> > I have to type a password everytime I boot. Having to type in my
> pass
> > phrase every time I boot is an acceptible price to pay. Security is
> not
> > a comprimise.
> 
> Security is always a compromise. 

It might be, but more to the point is, should it be?

> > RIP act! That is why it is needed. The plausable deniabilty aspect
> of
> > the StegFS is the main selling point.
> 
> You either misunderstand stegfs or you misunderstand the RIP act. To
> gain
> access to the StegFS partition, you need a passphrase. StegFS gives
> you no
> plausible deniability about that - only the data _on_ the partition.
> They
> can still ask you for your passphrase, and you can't deny you know
> it.

I do understand both stegFS and RIP. I can agree with you on some of
the above. They ask for my pass phrase which I give them, they can then
unlock layer 1, but I can plausibly deny the existance of layers 2 - 8
etc...
 
> The RIP act isn't concerned with encryption per se, only the methods
> of
> circumventing it :(

If I understand what you are meaning with this, The RIP doesn't worry
whether you are using massively secure encryption, you must give them
the key.
 
> > Having an encrypted filesystem is fine except that you must give
> the key
> > or accept 2yrs in prison!
> 
> .. and StegFS exempts you from this precisely how?

See above. Also I take it you have read the documents on the StegFS web
site?

Thanks

D
 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex.
> 
> -- 
> 
> -- 
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug 

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug