__/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 14:15 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> __/ [ High Plains Thumper ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:24 \__
>>
>>> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>> -----------------
>>>> When is a deleted file really deleted? With Windows Vista, that answer
>>>> gets complicated.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft recently revealed that Windows Vista would inherit "volume
>>>> shadow copy" technology from Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. In
>>>> those older operating systems, volume shadow copy is used to take
>>>> periodic snapshots of key system files, though the service can also be
>>>> instructed to monitor any kind of data for the purposes of creating a
>>>> system "restore point."
>>>> -----------------
>>>> End quote
>>>>
>>>> Want to make sure your operating system isn't pulling any obscure or
>>>> undocumented tricks behind your back? Use Linux!
>>>
>>> I like the "trash" bin in Linux. Right click on "empty", it is gone, no
>>> turning back! IMHO, redundant features like this volume shadow copy and
>>> for a matter of fact, multiple copy and paste buffers in Microsoft Office
>>> provide another reason for sites like, "Windows Annoyances" to remain
>>> open. I find it particularly annoying when copying and pasting, to see
>>> that stupid multiple choice pasting buffer pop-up.
>>
>> To play devil's advocate: When you empty the trash bin, you only eliminate
>> the pointers to the data which is being 'deleted'. The data is still there
>> on the disk (until overwritten), but it requires some deciphering, for
>> which there are tools. It's a similar scanrio with shadowing. If you want
>> to delete data properly, get the needed tool. But expect deletion be a
>> much slower operation as a result. To the ppolice, ingorance about this
>> (as well as the inclusion of this Vista feature) is a true blessing. A
>> detective's delight...
>>
>>
http://www.betanews.com/article/Vista_Encryption_Concerns_British_Police/1140050950
>>
>> Vista Encryption Concerns British Gov
>
> There are a million and one utilities for secure file handling for
> windows long prior to vista. Typical press dramatization.
>
> I use truecrypt (or did) for a while on LInux too - but got sick of
> having to recompile it for every new kernel.
I understand. It's always this efficiency/safety tradeoff. One has to find
the healthy point of balance or simply script a solution (finding the
prepackaged solution is advantageous at times).
For example: tarring and encrypting sensitive information, later to be
decrypted and untarrer/uncompressed for access; Speed of standardised
formats like ODF (OASIS XML schema?); Other examples include: backup (how
many people take care of that 'safety net' infrequently? What is a safe
backup method? rsync with what cycles? What about stacking backups and
leaving trail in case of 'contaminations' or accidents?);
re-installation/maintenance/cleaning up of Windows (Registry, clog-ups, AV
software updates and so forth). It's that tradeoff. Always. The least one
can do is choose a system that make some of that stuff unnecessary or
automated (e.g. background job), leaving more time for work to receive
attention, rather than perpetual maintenance that's a repetitive bore.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.61 0.34 0.22 3/144 14014
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
