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

privacyoriented2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I stand behind my previous statement. It's clear, comprehensive, and

Yes, that's all you've ever done with any of your statements. Stand by
them. Unfortunately, this doesn't make them any more factual than any
other unsupported statement.

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?

Nope.

We'll be done when one of two things happens. You stand up like you
have a pair and provide some tangible proof that you've jump;ed the
basic hurdles people a whole lot smarter than you have failed to jump
for decades, or you finally do what you threatened to do and STFU.


To answer question (1) about random data. DBAN produces random data.

So do about a hundred other programs/tools. That's irrelevant. Wiped
free space and contiguous blocks of data are different even if they
contain the exact same sequence of bits. Why is this simple principal
so elusive to you?

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

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

No, they do not.

That failing aside, your obvious dodging of the rest didn't go
unnoticed either...

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.

.