Re: Protecting the Operating System
- From: Arthur T. <arthur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:08:17 -0400
In Message-ID:<Xns984948E257AC3abcxyzcom@xxxxxxxxx>,
"nemo_outis" <abc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Free Compusec works fine and is not discenibly slower than any other full
HD OTFE encryption product (the hit from any of them is negligible on a
fast machine).
I wouldn't worry about AES-128, it's more than strong enough. In fact, it
is rare for a user to have a password/passphrase that comes anywhere close
to 128-bit equivalence - the password, not the encryption, is usually the
weakest link.
In the case of Free Compusec, the password *has* to be weaker
than AES-128. According to its documentation, the password is up
to 16 bytes and alphanumeric. Even if it's totally random, I get
it to be the equivalent of only about 95 bits (83 if case is
ignored).
--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
Looking for a good MVS systems programmer position
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Protecting the Operating System
- From: nemo_outis
- Re: Protecting the Operating System
- Prev by Date: Re: Bios Passwords
- Next by Date: Re: Protecting the Operating System
- Previous by thread: Re: Protecting the Operating System
- Next by thread: Re: Protecting the Operating System
- Index(es):