Re: Are computer forensics people as stupid as they seem?

This is my third attempt at posting this message. Google seems to have
lost the previous two attempts, yet again. I tried tinkering with my
Javascript settings. Hopefully, this does the trick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Who the f* are you?

I stand behind my previous statement (you know the really long one
after this one you're replying to). It's clear, comprehensive, and
easy for anyone with half a brain to read. If you don't understand it,
I don't care. I'm willing to bet most readers do. I'll elaborate on
(2) when someone is actually genuinely interested. For (3), I've had
enough. It's not a security matter. It works fine for me. I'm done
with that.

We done?

To answer question (1) about random data. DBAN produces random data.
Let's say you don't do the final zero pass. Or let's say you use a
wiper that doesn't do a zero pass. The drive is loaded with random
data. When you install an OS over this, it's still loaded with random
data. Do you have to explain that? Probably not. If you do have to,
it's fairly trivial. Encrypted data from some/most OTFE programs looks
exactly like DBAN. Did you not understand the point of the link I gave
you on the TC forum?

Does that make sense to you? I can't help you if it doesn't. This is
so simple a novice could undersand it.

Actually, you know what, let me make this kindergarten for you.

DDDDDBBBBBBAAAAAANNNNNN
data==========eeeeennnnncccccrrrrrrryppppptttteeedddd data

They look the same. One can pass for the other. Get it?

As long as the output is statistically random, two sets of data cannot
be differentiated. Use diehard and the STS package from the NIST to
determine statistical randomness.

I've said this for the umpteenth time and you don't seem to get it. Do
I need to pound this into your head?


On Jun 7, 9:30 am, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonym...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Privacy <privacyorien...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I dropped the F bomb, I was basically stating, who the F are you?

No, who the f* are YOU? You're the one strutting around making all
the claims, then whining like a bitch about how mean everyone is when
they take you to task regarding those dubious assertions. We don't need
credentials here skippy. We're not the ones puffing our chests out, you
are, and trying to turn that table only looks like another tap dance
recital.

Once again:

1. You made the impossible claim of your scheme being "undetectable",
so how do you propose to hide the fact that there's encrypted data on
some portion of a drive? Yes, encrypted data is different from regular
data, or random data.

2. How are you going to hide the "stub" that must load to divert the
boot process from one OS to the other?

3. How are you going to protect your encrypted volume from activity in
the unencrypted environment? Sorry, but "be careful" just doesn't get
it. And your "within one byte" idiocy shows how little you know about
FAT file systems because running that close would ABSOLOUTELY mean data
loss due to the natural "growth" of a FAT file system via fragmentation
during normal usage.

Try answering these questions for a start rather than acting like a
whining child and MAYBE you'll actually gain some of the credibility
you think you have. That's MAYBE.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are computer forensics people as stupid as they seem?
    ... Encrypted data from some/most OTFE programs looks ... You made the impossible claim of your scheme being "undetectable", ... FAT file systems because running that close would ABSOLOUTELY mean data ... whining child and MAYBE you'll actually gain some of the credibility ...
    (alt.privacy)
  • Re: Are computer forensics people as stupid as they seem?
    ... Encrypted data from some/most OTFE programs looks ... You made the impossible claim of your scheme being "undetectable", ... FAT file systems because running that close would ABSOLOUTELY mean data ... whining child and MAYBE you'll actually gain some of the credibility ...
    (alt.privacy)
  • Re: Are computer forensics people as stupid as they seem?
    ... then whining like a bitch about how mean everyone is when ... encrypted data is different from regular ... FAT file systems because running that close would ABSOLOUTELY mean data ... whining child and MAYBE you'll actually gain some of the credibility ...
    (alt.privacy)
  • Re: Are computer forensics people as stupid as they seem?
    ... can't master Google, but want us to believe you've ... You made the impossible claim of your scheme being "undetectable", ... FAT file systems because running that close would ABSOLOUTELY mean data ... whining child and MAYBE you'll actually gain some of the credibility ...
    (alt.privacy)