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

On Jun 10, 9:55 am, George Orwell <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


That's exactly what I've been doing, more or less, since long before your
dumb ass ever showed up. Of course having dropped your precious Winblows
hand holding years ago I don't have a pretty GUI with which to select
devices to encrypt so I actually do know exactly what I'm encrypting, and
the tools at my disposal don't bull*** me when I plug in an encrypted
device and try to access it.

Your problem here, or rather one of your problems here, is that you're
being fed nonsense by an OS that's designed more to insulate users from
facts than confuse them with the same. A truecrypt "device" most certainly
does appear different from a blank/wiped device if you use competent tools.

PS - If you encrypt a device on a Winblows box and then attach it to a box
with a real operating system the results are the same. Please don't be
silly enough to suggest an attacker might not consider this. ;)

I'll tell you what I told Nomen and Cyberiade. My system shows they
look exactly the same, so my work is done. If you're getting different
results, it's incumbent on you to share these results with us. Post
the results from your hex editor. Tell us what type of device you're
using. That could play a factor. It has to be hard drives. They have
to be modern hard drives and not virtual. Sorry, but that's the only
way to resolve this.

.