D
Dustin Harper
If it's stolen and used in a different Vista install, it is erased and a
new one is made.
If it's in the same Vista install, then it stays.
new one is made.
If it's in the same Vista install, then it stays.
J
Justin
I guess I never thought about WHAT information would be retained on the USB
stick. If there's a chance that personal information can be retained on the
stick then I'm glad the data get's wiped when an attempt to use the stick
outside it's last Vista boot is attempted.
That's exactly how it should be.
Thanks for that information Dustin!
stick. If there's a chance that personal information can be retained on the
stick then I'm glad the data get's wiped when an attempt to use the stick
outside it's last Vista boot is attempted.
That's exactly how it should be.
Thanks for that information Dustin!
J
Justin
bp said:
Now what gave you that impression???
M
Michael Cecil
I wonder if it's actually wiped or just deleted? It is quite possible to
recover data from USB drives if it's only been deleted.
G
Guest
Nevermind I stand corrected, you really do have a reading comprehension
problem.
I guess not everyone can score a perfect 800 SAT verbal like I can.
Idiot.
problem.
I guess not everyone can score a perfect 800 SAT verbal like I can.
Idiot.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> Dustin Harper
I'm confused -- Relying on some other OS to hopefully remember to delete
a file is a "Security" issue?
It most definitely is not. Even the most amateur security expert can
explain why this offers virtually no security -- Anyone capable of
cracking the encryption on the file will definitely not be stupid enough
to stick the USB drive into an operating system which will corrupt the
file before you start.
At best, it's a convenience in that it frees up the space -- However, it
should, at a minimum, be optional, since it partially negates the
performance boost.
I'm confused -- Relying on some other OS to hopefully remember to delete
a file is a "Security" issue?
It most definitely is not. Even the most amateur security expert can
explain why this offers virtually no security -- Anyone capable of
cracking the encryption on the file will definitely not be stupid enough
to stick the USB drive into an operating system which will corrupt the
file before you start.
At best, it's a convenience in that it frees up the space -- However, it
should, at a minimum, be optional, since it partially negates the
performance boost.
J
Justin
From a buddy:
"I just tried it here and the file is on the USB drive as
"ReadyBoost.sfcache" and just sits there (this is on my xp machine)."
It doesn't get removed from his XP machine.
"I just tried it here and the file is on the USB drive as
"ReadyBoost.sfcache" and just sits there (this is on my xp machine)."
It doesn't get removed from his XP machine.
M
Michal Kawecki
Dustin Harper said:
[...]
Hm. Do you seriously mean someone can get information from AES-128
encrypted file?
Interesting...
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Michal Kawecki"
Yes. Every single ReadyBoost user can and does every time Windows uses
the ReadyBoost cache.
Someone unauthorized would be tougher... However, regardless of the
strength of the encryption, there may still be implementation bugs.
Regardless, relying on the user to stick the stolen ReadyBoost cache
into a XP SP2 machine to delete the file, and hoping they don't use
another OS isn't a security feature, it's stupid.
I suspect that the goal was simply to free up the space, for those that
don't understand why most of their memory stick is suddenly unavailable.
Yes. Every single ReadyBoost user can and does every time Windows uses
the ReadyBoost cache.
Someone unauthorized would be tougher... However, regardless of the
strength of the encryption, there may still be implementation bugs.
Regardless, relying on the user to stick the stolen ReadyBoost cache
into a XP SP2 machine to delete the file, and hoping they don't use
another OS isn't a security feature, it's stupid.
I suspect that the goal was simply to free up the space, for those that
don't understand why most of their memory stick is suddenly unavailable.
J
johnm
what makes you think it was a "mistake"?
MS knew what they were doing...
MS has for years, since Win95 at least, decided that the PC you're using
belongs to them, not you.
Just like all the hardware vendors who take products that are STILL on store
shelves,
call them "Legacy" now that Vista is out, then refuse to update their
drivers for new products.
They want to force you into buying a new one - no other reason. They could
issue updated drivers,
if they WANTED to, they just choose not to.
MS knew what they were doing...
MS has for years, since Win95 at least, decided that the PC you're using
belongs to them, not you.
Just like all the hardware vendors who take products that are STILL on store
shelves,
call them "Legacy" now that Vista is out, then refuse to update their
drivers for new products.
They want to force you into buying a new one - no other reason. They could
issue updated drivers,
if they WANTED to, they just choose not to.
D
Dustin Harper
I can see your point, to a certain extent. Although I think that they
should have longer support times, I also think that they should put that
money from development of older drivers into newer technology. Most
hardware companies cannot afford to keep a driver staff on the payroll
for older OS's.
The major hardware advances have been done by putting more money into
R&D of new products and drivers, rather than keeping the old ones up to
date dragging along.
But, I do think that with the newer products (yes, the ones still on the
shelf) do need to be supported by updated drivers. They should support
them for a certain lifespan (longer than 6 months or for a new OS).
But, as usual, if they do not support your products, show them that you
won't support them with your cash. Buy something else.
should have longer support times, I also think that they should put that
money from development of older drivers into newer technology. Most
hardware companies cannot afford to keep a driver staff on the payroll
for older OS's.
The major hardware advances have been done by putting more money into
R&D of new products and drivers, rather than keeping the old ones up to
date dragging along.
But, I do think that with the newer products (yes, the ones still on the
shelf) do need to be supported by updated drivers. They should support
them for a certain lifespan (longer than 6 months or for a new OS).
But, as usual, if they do not support your products, show them that you
won't support them with your cash. Buy something else.