Encryption Software

rrinc

For those of you that encrypt stuff, I'm curious what do you use for encryption. I came across this awesome program: TrueCrypt
The fake volume (for when you're forced to reveal your password) is pretty cool, since you can give them bogus files.
So far the only thing I've really encrypted is product keys (like for Abyss). What do you think an inconspicuous encrypted container file name and extension would be to put stuff in?

olly86

I created a file with a random string name in the root of the C partition with no file extension.
Also, I use for complete encryption of my laptop harddrive.

rrinc

How's the performance with a full hard drive being encrypted?

olly86

It actually seams to have increased the hard drive access speed. Maybe it uses buffering or something like that to increase the speed?

Tom Chapman

olly86

That's Vista only support thou. Some of us don't want to down grade our OS yet.

Tom Chapman

olly86 wrote
That's Vista only support thou. Some of us don't want to down grade our OS yet.

I've tried downgrading back to XP. I can't live like that as much as I may want to. The key reason for Vista appearing slower than XP is because of security changes to to the kernal.

rrinc

Lies! What's wrong with XP that you can't use it?

abyssisthebest

I got a laptop with vista and it was so bad i brought a macbook!

pkSML

My brother's looking for a new laptop. I found one, but it's crazy expensive for a comparatively-priced Vista system.
So, I check the manufacturer's website and find out if they support XP drivers. Then buy the Vista system and XP, and perform the "real upgrade" back to XP because nothing is an upgrade with Microsoft ;)

Tom Chapman

rrinc wrote
Lies! What's wrong with XP that you can't use it?

It's like the Playstation 3. Half of its missing.
Plus, being one that doesn't use virus or firewall software and needing a serial key.. for something, I went and found my self one. I infected my XP installation. I installed Trend Micro later followed my Mcafee. It was too late. SO I rebooted into Vista ran the exe, got my key, all was fine.
Moral of the story, Vista has increased security.
If you go and Google rubbish, and read up on all the technical stuff, you'll find that Vista really does have its advantages and is closer to a tecnically complete OS than XP. I can't speak for Mac OSX.. My hackintosh tried to wipe my Vista installation so off with it. Ubuntu starts up fast (just like my Vista installation because I control my start up processes like every user does..) and operates well.. until I get to Mozilla where load times are dramatically increased for web sites.. Then again, it's the only part of that damned OS that can access the Internet. (don't go there..)
ON THE OTHER HAND, XP has a lot viewer processes running at any one given time and overall, I'd label it a minimalist's operating system in comparison.
If you can understand what's written here, I commend you.
P.S.

pkSML wrote
because nothing is an upgrade with Microsoft ;)/quote]
I do believe it's quite the opposite, every things an upgrade with them! Four (4) service packs for Windows 2000, how many consecutive OSs have the released now..? Bills like "MUAHAHAHA" everytime he released something new because eveyone is programmed to go buy it these days.
I'd like to see Bill, Steve and Linus put in the same room together, or for that matter, them make an OS TOGETHER. That would be a landmark in history - Armstrong would be forgotten.

rrinc

I don't deny Vista's improved security and other features, but I think Microsoft could have implemented them in a more efficient way, there's no reason we should need to upgrade to faster hardware to run a new OS at a decent speed (not fast, just decent...that's Vista). Take Webkit as an example (yes, I know it isn't an operating system - its a rendering engine), it has gotten significantly more efficient with the updates its had recently while adding more features. If Microsoft would work harder they could make an OS as fast as XP with many if not all of Vista's security enhancements.

Tom Chapman

rrinc wrote
(yes, I know it isn't an operating system - its a rendering engine)

Your theory is simply theory, it doesn't work in practice ><
Vista isn't a Pentium 4 1.6 Ghz, 512 MB RAM, 40 GB hard disk and integrated graphics OS. The Vista capable stickers were.. misplaced.

abyssisthebest wrote
I got a laptop with vista and it was so bad i brought a macbook!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/vista_capable_laptops_sucked_so_intel_could_dump_crappy_graphics_chips-2.html
and the one I like: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/vista_capable_sticker_lawsuit_becomes_class_action-2.html
My point is that you can't not upgrade. That's just not how computers work. There was a famous man, possibly the starter of Intel and he had a theory about major advancements in the computer market that every 2 or 3 years, we'd all have to think about upgrading at some point. That time frame has shrunk and it will continue to for quite some years. I could go into all that power limits stuff about being limited by the speed of light etc in regard to processors but well, I'd trail off as I am now.

rrinc

Sure, Windows users will at some point need to upgrade. Some of us just want to wait as long as we can...

pkSML

rrinc wrote
Sure, Windows users will at some point need to upgrade. Some of us just want to wait as long as we can...

Ditto that. That's why I shelled out $1500 for a new system when I didn't need it. I got a power horse that'll last awhile and still have XP on it.
@Tom: Not trying to start any more arguments here, but...
On XP, I don't have any anti-virus software. Occasionally, Spybot is run, and I just practice safe computing. If I like software, I buy it. :) If my system gets corrupted, I reformat and it works much faster!
Vista is much more graphics-based with a glossy appeal. I really just like the much-more-plain WinXP. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion on that one, though.
There's my two cents, or three.

rrinc

Yeah, I'm running XP on a 3Ghz (overclocked) Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. As much as I'd like to believe it, I don't think Vista will run quite as well as I want it to on this hardware.
I too prefer XP's graphics. I actually prefer the Windows Classic theme...it gets the job done.

loloyd

Nice thread. From encryption to Vista vs XP ad nauseum.
I normally don't encrypt filesystems, nor files. If I wanted to, I could just use WinRAR and put in a password. At home, and I am whispering this so that my kids won't hear :-D, I use NTFS ACL to block other users access to certain folders. Oh wait, I also use that method at work. And it's quite good enough to fool the laziest of my colleagues (they give up too easily).
But I've also come across TrueCrypt in the past. I've downloaded it but I never really used it. What's the name for this kind of sickness?
In the meantime, I'll stick with my XP. Experience tells me to stick with it and leave Vista to those who can afford to pay for the extra stuff I can do without anyway for way faster than the things they paid for. Sound like bla bla bla? Yeah, to me too.

Tom Chapman

You guys either simply havn't tried Vista on your machines or you're just making assumptions based on other's oh so very political views.
I run Windows Vista Ultimate on a AMD Atholon 3500+ (2.2Ghz) with 1492 MB (DDR2) of RAM. To compliment my setup, I use the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS.
It runs as fast as my old XP set up. It manages my physical memory much more efficiently and is far more secure than previous Microsoft operating systems for number of reasons including file permissions, UAC (I have it set up to prmpt for a password every time. Yup.) and the modificiations to the Kernal which are the cause for games running 'more slowly' on Vista systems than XP systems. Why is this? The graphics drivers were moved out of the kernal layer for added security making them run more slowly because they were no longer able to interface directly with the hardware.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx

loloyd

I've run several laptops on Windows Vista Business Edition (OEM) in the past (late 2007 for an end of year project). All the laptops were of the same model - the cute little Acer TravelMate 6292. The little buggers scored a range from low 3's to 3.5 in the Vista Performance Index. Admittedly, file transfers were experienced blazingly faster, 3 Gigs in less than 40 seconds over UTP direct crossover link. I think that's impressive.
I and my colleagues also got to play around with many of Vista's settings, but I didn't really like the way it INSISTED on always switching back to the inefficient Aero theme. We also played with the User Access Control (UAC) feature and turned off the pesky security alert that asks you to confirm every little thing you wanted to do with the system. I also noted another security enhancement in Vista wherein it caches DB connections and erases raw connection strings from memory - this is apparently done so that hackers using memory mappers may be deterred from figuring out DB connection strings. XP does not exhibit this form of security tightness. However, we also experienced some drawbacks with our programs due to these kinds of changes and we had to fine-tune or revisit the way we issue DB connects to make our programs Vista-compatible.
Overall, we had very mixed feelings with regard to embracing Vista as an everyday OS. Some of us liked it. Some of us didn't. I ultimately didn't. And I also didn't like the Acer TravelMate 6292 - it's just too small.
I guess it would be "harder" to hook to the Vista kernel now, something that's been a security problem with XP but also a simplicity godsend if you know what you're doing and trust enough the programs you use that hook to the OS kernel.
Besides, I still run old machines, like an AMD Duron 700 MHz at home. And it runs XP quite comfortably well, loaded with server apps, office apps, custom apps, etc. - this is something Vista will not be able to brag about.

Tom Chapman

Vista is a fair few years more recent than XP, it's not designed for your 0.700 Ghz systems lol
My system gets a big fat 2.8.. Maybe the lower the number the better? :D