External Drive Encryption

Computer Software Security - Computer security - desktop and server software, encryption and similar subjects 

Bookmark this page:   Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date External Drive Encryption default 04-05-2007  Re: External Drive Encryption Sebastian Gotts... 04-05-2007  Re: External Drive Encryption nemo_outis 04-05-2007  Re: External Drive Encryption Vanguard 04-06-2007  Re: External Drive Encryption Hexalon 04-06-2007
Posted by default on April 5, 2007, 9:29 am If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options Which is better, safer, and more convenient: 1) An external drive with builtin encryption such as Beyond Micros version with 40-bit DES: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1857341&CatId=2422 2) Software-based encryption such as TrueCrypt http://www.truecrypt.org/ It seems to an unitiated person such as myself that (1) would be more convenient and wouldn't drain my cpu, but I wasn't sure if it was safe. Thanks! --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =- Posted by Sebastian Gottschalk on April 5, 2007, 9:42 am If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options default wrote: > Which is better, safer, and more convenient: > > 1) An external drive with builtin encryption such as Beyond Micros > version with 40-bit DES: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1857341&CatId=2422 > > > 2) Software-based encryption such as TrueCrypt http://www.truecrypt.org/ > > > It seems to an unitiated person such as myself that (1) would be more > convenient and wouldn't drain my cpu, but I wasn't sure if it was safe. Ehm... for $1000 you can break DES-40 within one second.... BTW, please get a clue on line length and delimiting your advertisement. Posted by nemo_outis on April 5, 2007, 2:56 pm If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options "default" <default> wrote in > Which is better, safer, and more convenient: > > 1) An external drive with builtin encryption such as Beyond Micros > version with 40-bit DES: > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Ed > pNo=1857341&CatId=2422 > > 2) Software-based encryption such as TrueCrypt > http://www.truecrypt.org/ > > It seems to an unitiated person such as myself that (1) would be more > convenient and wouldn't drain my cpu, but I wasn't sure if it was > safe. > > Thanks! > > > --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- > ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- > -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =- > > 1. 40-bit encryption is OK for light to medium duty but a serious adversary can crack it over, say, a weekend. 2. If the external drive will be sometimes/frequently attached to others' drives on which you don't have administator rights it will be more convenient (since Truecrypt needs these rights to install its driver). 3. Truecrypt has much stronger encrytion (256 bit) and it's open source and free. There is no discernible performance hit for using it even on old weak CPUs. It takes only ordinary skills to install Truecrypt (a firewall is much trickier by comparison). Regards, Posted by Vanguard on April 6, 2007, 12:41 am If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options <default> wrote in message > Which is better, safer, and more convenient: > > 1) An external drive with builtin encryption such as Beyond Micros > version with 40-bit DES: > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1857341&CatId=2422 > > 2) Software-based encryption such as TrueCrypt > http://www.truecrypt.org/ > > > --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- > ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- > -= Get GrabIt for free from <snip_spam_URL> =- 40-bit key? Geez, how old is this embeded algorithm in the controller inside this external drive? The smallest in TrueCrypt is 168 bits (Triple DES but 56-bit DES, not 40-bit). You couldn't manage to find an NNTP client that doesn't spam? Yeah, we really appreciate the spam ... NOT! Posted by Hexalon on April 6, 2007, 2:48 pm If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options On Apr 5, 8:29 am, "default" <default> wrote: > Which is better, safer, and more convenient: > > 1) An external drive with builtin encryption such as Beyond Micros version with 40-bit DES:http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?... > > 2) Software-based encryption such as TrueCrypthttp://www.truecrypt.org/ > > It seems to an unitiated person such as myself that (1) would be more convenient and wouldn't drain my cpu, but I wasn't sure if it was safe. > > Thanks! > > --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- > ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- > -= Get GrabIt for free fromhttp://www.shemes.com/ =- 40 bit DES is kinda weak. I would get a less expensive external drive and just use TrueCrypt. TrueCrypt has a benchmarking utility in it to help people find the best balance of speed and security. We use 256 bit AES and it seems to work well and it very very difficult to break. Similar Threads Posted looking for a simple freeware hard drive encryption tool July 25, 2005, 10:18 pm Can someone external reset my Autorun on a WinXP machine? January 12, 2006, 11:39 pm Recommendation for portable hard drive with hardware level encryption for backups February 14, 2010, 8:23 pm Evidence of file copy to external device on Windows 2000 / FAT 32 April 19, 2006, 4:05 am Defragmeting a USB drive October 21, 2006, 6:04 am Whole drive =?UTF-8?B?Y3J5cHQ/?= November 16, 2008, 3:46 pm Drive Crypt November 23, 2008, 6:07 am Hard Drive scrub June 17, 2005, 6:18 am Protecting my hard drive? September 14, 2005, 7:25 pm Pocket Windows, able to see IDE drive? September 1, 2006, 1:15 pm