-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Anders Andersson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:00 AM, David Christensen > <dpchr...@holgerdanske.com> wrote: > > > > Another, additional, option is self-encrypting drives (SED), which are > > operating system agnostic and protect the entire contents of drive with zero > > CPU overhead. > > Emphasis on the word "additional" here. Unless you have access to the > source code and hardware that actually implements the drive > encryption, I would trust it about as far as I can throw the drive,
I'd like to see that ;-) But seriously: given the history of firmware botches around (yes, including encrypted harddisks), and given the keen interest of shady state agencies [1] [2] (and that they prefer to work in the dark, like vampires and cockroaches), I strongly agree with your throwing sentiment. [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equation_group/ - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZ2wFgACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZuCgCaAhGtWayXpk8COvFi4pTxAjwO SDYAnRkGK7/LUJVxRbFXup8LgKszu6W9 =1LS1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
