Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seagate To Encrypt Data On Hard Drives

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the great-another-password-to-remember dept.

Krishna Dagli writes "Seagate, using their new DriveTrust Technology, will automatically encrypt every bit of data stored on the hard drive and require users to have a key, or password, before being able to access the disk drive."

20 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. No back doors? by pieterh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems unlikely.

    Would Seagate really attempt to market a drive that was going to protect pedophiles and terrorists? (Not to mention us ordinary citizens who don't wholly and utterly trust the organs of the state to act systematically in our best interests.)

    If so, it's a brave move. But somehow it just seems so unlikely...

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:No back doors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Tin hat Even if they claim to use an industry standard encryption .. I still wont know if the key can be secretly stored in a retrievable fashion in a EEPROM on the HDD hardware. Where are these drives made?

      The best security IMHO is linux with GPG and mix 'n matched off the shelf hardware. This way the HDD doesnt know what/where the encryption key is, or even that the data is being encrypted.

      In my opinion, mass distributed software based encryption is easier to trust (because it's easier to verify the integrity). Before you claim spyware can steal it.. a keylogger or whatever can grab the hardware HDD encryption keys too.

      Disadvantage is that it may need more CPU .. but if you're a corporation that needs to guarantee itself against (chinese?) espionage then it's needed.

    2. Re:No back doors? by lawpoop · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think that given the 'post-9/11' world we live in, there is no way the US government is going to allow Seagate to sell encryption technology that is totally under user control. When they are chasing down terrorists, why would they want to rely on the suspect for the key? Just call up Seagate and get it.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:No back doors? by perrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Truecrypt is a nice idea, except that if the interrogators find truecrypt on your harddisk, they may automatically assume you have a hidden volume inside your encrypted volume. It is only when truecrypt is distributed on your distro of choice by default, and is used there regularly to encrypt volumes without a hidden volume, that it provides plausible deniability.

  2. Wow by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Laptop computers with DriveTrust-based hard drives would prompt users to type in a password before booting up the machine. Without the password, the hard drive would be useless, Seagate officials said.

    Even data-recovery specialists would not be able to help if the assigned password somehow gets lost, said Scott Shimomura, a senior product marketing manager at Seagate.

    Good thing passwords are never forgotten.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Wow by jbarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much for allowing my remote-access computer at home to auto-boot....

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  3. Mis-named by proc_tarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DriveMisTrust sounds more like it.

    1. Re:Mis-named by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      DriveMisTrust sounds more like it.

      If you can feel relatively confident that a lost or stolen laptop (or desktop for that matter -- they get stolen too) will not in any way reveal confidental data, then I would say it gives you a lot more trust in the media, hence the name.
    2. Re:Mis-named by proc_tarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking more of keeping my data private from the nefarious plans of others, and likewise our mis-trust of them. Because I need to OnStar car, ADT my home, V-chip my kids, and now DriveTrust my data. All to make me feel secure.

      It's all irrational fear perpetrated by the bogeyman.

  4. Not in my IT department! by bbernard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because I don't want the added lag of hardware en/decryption with every write/read.

    Because I don't want one more password per computer that I, as an IT admin, need to keep track of.

    Because I don't want even the operating system, swap, graphics, and music files encrypted.

    Because new technology like this *never* causes any issues with the system's operation.

    No, not in my IT department.

    --
    ----- Connection reset by beer
    1. Re:Not in my IT department! by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting... You don't want it in your IT Dept, yet we are eagerly awaiting it in our IT Dept. We're not going to go with the Seagate solution, however we are eagerly awaiting the release of Vista so we can take advantage of the BitLocker Encryption. I work for a CPA firm; privacy is pretty important.... especially when you have auditors in the field and the occasional laptop getting stolen. The slight slowness in full harddrive encryption is well worth the price. 99.9% of the users will never notice it.... Excel/Word isn't exactly a HD intensive application. And yes... in the past (5 years ago), we did full HD encryption and it wasn't bad at all (slowness wise). The only issues came into play if you wanted to remove the encyption, or if the drive started to fail and you wanted to boot off a boot disk to grab your data (it was possible, but cumbersome). Hopefully Vista's solution will be more robust. If the trials work out as we hope, full encryption firm wide will be the next step (possibly within 6 to 8 months).

    2. Re:Not in my IT department! by bbernard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My point is really more about this being an overkill solution, and poorly thought-out as well.

      1. I've seen all sorts of problems with encrypting certain system files on a hard drive. Perhaps that's because the encryption has been software based, but key system files seem to have problems when encrypted.

      2. How will you enforce strong passwords? How will you enforce password change policies? Can you even change the password once it has been set? If the user and IT agree on a passowrd, can we be sure that the user won't change it without telling IT? I'm concerned that you're trading one security issue for another one.

      3. In a laptop, HDD speed makes a huge difference in the overall performance. The jump in performance on a 5 year old laptop between a 5400 and 7200 RPM drive is not only noticible, but amazing. So anything that further bottlenecks one of the worst bottlenecks for a laptop in the first place seems like a bad idea to me.

      4. IT/InfoSec simply has to have a back door onto your hard drive. For forensics reasons, compliance reasons, and for when you leave the company. We have to see what software you have installed, etc., and even without your cooperation. So a software solution, after the OS loads, with "multiple" encryption keys is absolutely necessary.

      5. I know it's only a 4 paragraph article, but what encryption algorythm are we talking about here? DES? AES-256? And in 12-24 months if it's not strong enough, can you "upgrade" the encryption to something harder to defeat, or are you swapping out drives?

      So no, not in my IT department. I'll take a solution that lets me encrypt key files/folders, and lets both InfoSec and the user have access to it, and that I can "upgrade" with a minimum of fuss if somebody breaks whatever encryption system is in use.

      --
      ----- Connection reset by beer
    3. Re:Not in my IT department! by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you want to keep auditors out of your files.

      What? Sorry if that's the impression you got, I must have mis-typed. We aren't trying to keep auditors out of the files, we are trying to keep thieves out of the files. We've had laptops stolen while our auditors were out in the field before. The last thing we want is for our client's data to find its way into the wild. If we were working on your tax return, wouldn't you prefer that *if* it was copied to a laptop HD, that the laptop HD be encrypted? Protecting information if very important to us.

      Encryption wouldn't have helped cover up Enron. Even if your drives were 100% encrypted, you still have paper copied the Feds could go after. Even if you shred all your paper (which would look very fishy, even in a 'paperless office'), you still have backup tapes. And if every single one of your backup tapes were encrypted AND you just happen to have 'forgot' the password to the tapes as well... well, I think the judge will have you for obstruction at that point.

      Trust me.. accountants aren't the most tech savvy individuals. They just do their job and get the hell outta here. Enron and AA had some bad people at the top. A few bad apples which hurt a lot of very good people. They may have been very good at fudging some numbers, but when it comes to "tech savvy'ness".... well, there's a reason that in all the scandle movies.. the only things accounts know how to do is shred paper.

    4. Re:Not in my IT department! by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because I don't want even the operating system, swap, graphics, and music files encrypted.

      If you don't want the swap encrypted, then why bother encrypting any of the data at all?

  5. Next time RIAA asks your HD... by Zaatxe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... you can hand it to them with a grim smile on your face!

    --
    So say we all
  6. Re:Take that by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take that MPAA....and RIAA...and NSA....and every other person who wants my bits.

    Um, out of curiosity, how is this any different than any other form of data storate crypto, when it comes to a civil suit over whether your box's MAC address, etc., is clearly publishing copyrighted material a thousand "friends" you've never met before? Whether you're hiding data through drive-level encryption, or doing it with an app that runs a few layers farther up the stack, you're still going to have to face a court order to divulge the contents if a judge can be reasonably convinced that you're hiding something related to the case at hand. It might be a neutral third party, as is often used, but if you refuse to let someone get to that data, it doesn't really matter which bit of tech is doing the hiding.

    The bigger issue is whether a court can make you do it or not (seems to depend on the jurisdiction and the cirumstances), and if they can, what the consequences might be for you telling the judge "screw you."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. And maybe you don't need it.. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you're handing classified information, have employees take home thousands of credit cards on laptops, or thousands of medical records on laptops you're probbably not really the target for a drive like this.

    If your company does handle this kind of data (or worse), maybe you should be re-examining your role as a sys-admin or manager. It's not all about making your life easier you know. There are of course risks and costs to maintaining a database of passwords, small performance costs for encrypting/decrypting the HD, and possible incompatibilities. There's also risks and costs associated with someone losing the laptop and the big headlines in the newspaper about how your company now looks like a bunch of ass-hats for losing 200,000 CC #s, 50,000 medical records, etc. Security and administration is about managing risk. If the overall risk is lower with this drive (and the price is right), you do it.

    --
    AccountKiller
  8. Re:Why do this in hardware? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Encrypting files rather than drive access is preferable to me, because if I forget a password I can still wipe and reuse the drive. Solutions that result in junk hardware are probably ok for some commercial customers, but I'd like to be able to save my gear if things go wrong.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  9. Yes by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just as the gun manufacturers manufacture guns that are as easily used by psychopaths as they are used by legitimate owners.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Yes by strider44 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2) to defend against a corrupt government, to create a balance of power in the people. today that's not relevant since the gov has MUCH bigger guns. they have nukes, for crissakes! there is ZERO chance any group of people will be able to 'control the gov' with guns. just not gonna happen anymore. if you even try, you will find yourself dead or locked up anyway. you can't fight 'the man' this way.

      Actually that's quite wrong. The difference is that you're for some reason expecting the populous to be fighting a traditional war against the government (so they'll pick a nice green field to have it all out). Obviously the people with tanks and nukes will win and everything will go back to normal.

      The problem is that this is a revolution. There's a couple of differences. Firstly, there's no battlefield - the people you're against are *everywhere*. Tanks can't do shit against a revolution, missiles even less. Tanks are only useful in a battlefield, they've *never* been useful in a town let alone a city where they're just sitting ducks for the first person with a good enough mine, bazooka or bomb. Modern tanks are less vulnerable to this, but it doesn't counter the fact that if they can't see the enemy or shoot at the enemy then they're fucked. Now with that put forward how do you think the government's going to use missiles when the target is spread across an entire nation? Do you really think that the government is going to nuke its own citizens?

      Secondly, revolutions tend to have first strike capability. A government can't really defend itself if the parliment's already been swarmed and the top ministers shot.

      Thirdly, if an entire nation is revolting against itself, chances are at least some of the military are with them. How long do you think the tanks and missiles are going to stay in the government's hands?

      Forthly (and the last of my points), people in a revolution are more likely to use "dirty" tactics like sniping and guerrilla warefare, suicide bombs etc. That's sort of hard to defend against.

      When modern technology is having so much trouble in Iraq against people with a lot less resources than the people of the US, do you really think that the government is going to win in a full scale revolt?