Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD's Crypto-Graphic Disk
An anonymous reader writes "Security-minded laptop users live in fear of theft, not only of their computer but also of their precious secret data. NetBSD's CGD project is a cryptographic virtual disk that can protect sensitive data while acting like a normal filesystem. Recently its author, Roland Dowdeswell, was interviewed and provided a lot of details, and made a comparison with Linux's Loop-AES, FreeBSD's GBDE, OpenBSD's svnd.
This is a must-read for any laptop owner (and paranoid androids)!"
What happens if cdgconfig file is lost or damaged?
If you lose the cdgconfig file, is your data irrecoverable?
When it overwrites data, is it truly unreadable?
How taxing is this system, how long does it take to execute?
What happens when you lose your PW?
Are there knowledgable people in the same continent that can provide support for this?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
if you remember to encrypt any partitions that temporary data might possibly reside on... cos it would be awfully silly to protect your home partition and forget /var or /tmp or the swap... why not be completely paranoid and encrypt the the volatile "partition" that gets created in memory
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
That is exactly why my prefered solution for on-the-fly hard disk encryption is TrueCrypt. Not only is it open source and cross platform (Windows/Linux), but it also happens to simply rock, surpassing many commercial products, with lots of nice features like the use of keyfiles, or for the true paranoid, cascade encryption (like AES-Blowfish-TripleDES) and plausible deniability (hidden volume).
I code, therefore I am.
the parent is a troll and an idiot, but you seem to be genuinely asking, so i'll take the time to answer.
GUI quality: The troll gives no indication of what or how he's measuring. it's difficult to deny that MS's GUIs are more polished, but there are numerous inconstancies. GUIs available on unix systems, including FreeBSD, tend to be more configurable. i'm inclined to agree that traditional X11-based GUIs are behind that of Windows, but that's a far cry from FreeBSD not having one, as the troll claims. also, OS X is widely agreed to be easier to use than Windows' and is unquestionably more technically advanced (we'll see what Vista brings).
Support: The troll's claims that Microsoft is "the world's most trusted software company" is simply laughable. major failures in security and stability in Microsoft products are legendary; their reputation for quality is thoroughly mediocre. they are, however, quite large and do stand behind their products (such as they are) for defined periods of time, which has a certain level of comfort associated with it. FreeBSD, on the other hand, has much higher initial quality and also has commercial support available from various sources. the open source nature of FreeBSD and the vibrant community existing around it also means particularly obscure problems are more addressable than they are in Windows, where you're left waiting for Microsoft to release a patch. again, there are trade offs to be made, but i think FreeBSD is a clear winner here.
Cost and convenience: It is undeniable that having the system pre-installed is a huge win for convenience. but the troll goes way off-track from there. first, XP is available pre-installed, but for how many architectures, maybe two (x86 and itanium)? FreeBSD is available on about a half dozen (NetBSD, incidentally, is available on dozens); this is particularly important in the sever and appliance realms, which are FreeBSD's primary target spaces. FreeBSD is available pre-installed at least on server equipment (i don't know of anyone who does workstations/laptops). the troll claims that XP is free, which is flatly false: the cost is bundled in the cost of the hardware. the troll is also implicitly defining terms like "every major manufacturer" to be only ones he cares about: get me an XP system from Sun or Apple, for example.
Stability/scalability:Again, the troll gives no measurements. at a minimum, XP has a reputation for being unreliable. in my experience at work, XP is a step down in stability and reliability from 2000, although both of these are still leaps ahead of any Microsoft system predating that (except probably DOS, which was highly stable by virtue of being so tremendously simple). DoS-style attacks which bring down the system remain common against XP and virtually unheard of against FreeBSD. FreeBSD is highly stable. the standard edition of XP also scales to 2 processors; special versions are available to get it up to higher number, but still pretty modest number of processors (i think it was 16, but i don't remember). i'm not sure specifically what SMP problems the troll is talking about (again, no specifics), but i've personally run FreeBSD on dual-processor SMB systems without issue and other BSDs on systems much, much larger than any Microsoft product has any hope of touching. for reference, note that BSD-based systems hold many places in the Top 500 supercomputer list, including several in the top 20; Windows can't hope to touch that level of performance.
Software availability: No, troll, not everyone uses it. but yes, it does have more software. for that reason, when i was Director of IT for our company, we continued to by Windows boxes; our accounting package wasn't available on any other platform. but this very much depends what you need. FreeBSD certainly runs a far cry more than vi. most things that'll run on other open-source systems like Linux,
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.