Soldato
BitLocker isn't enabled by default. How could it be when hardly any PCs around the launch date of Vista will have TPM's?
Vista, Vista, Vista, Vista, Vista and Vista
- Thread starter Kerplunk
- Start date
Associate
No but businesses will enable it. Thats where it realy matters not to the normal user.
Soldato
Yes exactly, and really that applies to 90% of the DRM issue too.Una said:
Businesses and governments have been asking for this type of security for yonks, so Microsoft are letting them have it. If one of their employees loses a laptop (like government members seem to do on a monthly basis...) they don't have to worry anymore about the lost data.
Associate
Yeah im not saying its a bad thing. If your worried about security you dont run windows period.
Man of Honour
But you don't do brute forceUna said:
You use social engineering. You find out everything you can about the suspect. Everything. You find other passwords, hints, keys and from this you construct a set of likely passwords which you then use to brute force. So still a lot of passwords to try, but at least a manegable amount with a supercomputer's worth of power.
And then there's the algorithmic weaknesses of course - MD5 and SHA1 have both had weaknesses found - really the encryption is only safe so long as computing power is insufficient to find weaknesses in the algo
Soldato
MD5 and SHA1 aren't encryption 
Associate
Beansprout said:But you don't do brute force
You use social engineering. You find out everything you can about the suspect. Everything. You find other passwords, hints, keys and from this you construct a set of likely passwords which you then use to brute force. So still a lot of passwords to try, but at least a manegable amount with a supercomputer's worth of power.
And then there's the algorithmic weaknesses of course - MD5 and SHA1 have both had weaknesses found - really the encryption is only safe so long as computing power is insufficient to find weaknesses in the algo
Yes I know. I was replying to nathane's post about using supercomputers to brute force
md5 and sha1 are just for hashing, collissions are bound to be possible.
Last edited:
Soldato
What would you run instead then?Una said:
An operating system with its source code available on the web? Windows NT is a very secure server platform. I've heard seasoned administrators actually describe it as more secure than the equivilent *nix distributions. However, flaws in its user interface/Explorer shell design during the Windows 9x to XP switchover left it wide open to attack over the past few years. Luckily Vista will completely fix that for good.
Normally the saying goes "If you're worried about security then turn off your computer" or "... then disconnect it from any network."
Man of Honour
And then there's the algorithmic weaknesses of course - [hyphen for separate point] MD5 and SHA1 have both had weaknesses found - really the encryptionNathanE said:MD5 and SHA1 aren't encryption
Should probably have used brackets really. Thou art pedant supreme
Ah but I was saying that you don't brute force as such, you just brute force a selection, which is probably implicit when GCHQ (lots of clever spy-types) is mentioned, so I was backing up NathanE
Associate
Depends how critical the system is. OpenBSD is a good choice.. Likewise with SElinux..
I would rarther have the source code available so you can audit your self. Saves reverse engineering m$ apps
I would rarther have the source code available so you can audit your self. Saves reverse engineering m$ apps
Soldato
Hmm. I will have to try auditing a full fledged operating system by myself some day....
Associate
Did I say the whole thing? What I ment to write is the community can audit the code. The more people that read the code makes it more likely for faults to be picked up on. Unlike in closed souce software where you only have the company working on it.