Re: avoid NTFS or ...

From: Shenan Stanley (news_helper_at_hushmail.com)
Date: 12/11/04


Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:33:41 -0600

Fishy wrote:
> I've been reading -- seems some techs prefer FAT instead of NTFS for
> security reasons. Could somebody please elaborate? All the MS hype I
> read touted NTFS as the best thing since sliced bread.
>
> I've got both, and frankly don't notice anything better about one than
> the other.

I have never met a true "Tech" who preferred FAT as a file system over NTFS
for "security reasons". Ask them to EXPLAIN this to you, as FAT and
security go together like Windows 98 and Security.

Choose FAT over NTFS?
----------------------------
Restoration reasons.. Okay.
Minimal speed increase (very minimal).. Maybe.

Security? No.
Maximum individual file size? No.
Administrative Control? No.

I just can't see it. For a non-tech person, yes - restoring from a failed
FAT system will be easier and less costly than from an NTFS system. For a
tech person, restoring from a FAT partition would be less steps or require
less tools - MAYBE. (Either way - I say make an image of the drive in
question, recover it from the image. File system, BLEH.)

Is there a marginal speed increase? Sort of - NTFS has more overhead
because it provides more in terms of features - that overhead *will* cause
some delays, somewhere, sometime.

However, without much in terms of tech-knowledge, one can boot up from a DOS
or Windows 98 boot diskette and copy everything off a FAT partition. Yep -
that's secure. Not saying the same cannot be done with NTFS, but it does
take a little more skill or knowledge at the very least.

Then there is that annoying file size limitation of FAT. I don't know about
you, but I actually HAVE files over 2GB. And if you share your computer
with others or have something you would prefer the other users not to be
able to get to without some work.. FAT is not going to provide you with
anything to help prevent this.

And those are the reasons - off of the top of my head - that I think you
should have these "techs" come here and discuss their security reasons
behind choosing FAT over NTFS.. Or point us to some of these articles you
have been reading. I am curious as to one "security" reason (security only)
that one would choose FAT over NTFS. heh

-- 
<- Shenan ->
-- 
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions.   Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet. 


Relevant Pages

  • XP pro security question
    ... If you're using FAT, ... >accessible from their accounts. ... >affect this particular security feature. ... Should I convert to NTFS (I didn't since ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: RE:Security Tab for printers in XP Pro
    ... There is very little, if any, security when using ... a FAT32 file system. ... Converting FAT32 to NTFS in Windows XP ... "Fat Guy" wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • RE: Simple Question ...
    ... If you are concerned about security at all, ... wan't to use FAT at all. ... but the security is much better on NTFS. ... We provide Ethical Hacking, Advanced Ethical Hacking, Intrusion Prevention, ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: avoid NTFS or ...
    ... even under the name of security. ... FAT has no security. ... filesystem security there is a huge whole in the ability ... EFS is only a feature when using NTFS storage. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: I had a crash
    ... FAT was created on a 'we need something now' basis during early DOS development in FL. ... FAT was obsoleted by HPFS which is turn was obsoleted by NTFS. ... locations so that damage to one disk area does not damage both ... bunnies causing hardware crashes. ...
    (alt.os.windows-xp)