cleo43
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 08/08/2006
View Profile
 Offline
|
Before retiring I worked for a company that uses AS/400, Unix, and Windows.
Guess what platform has most of the problems ?
I use Ubuntu for 4 years now, since I am no more forced fed with Windows - not hit by a single virus.
That my real life experience, don't need to be told what the truth is.
To see another way , Windows is good for job creation.
|
LittleBill
Scranton, PA USA
Senior Member
Joined: 08/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
cleo43 wrote:Before retiring I worked for a company that uses AS/400, Unix, and Windows.
Guess what platform has most of the problems ?
I use Ubuntu for 4 years now, since I am no more forced fed with Windows - not hit by a single virus.
That my real life experience, don't need to be told what the truth is.
To see another way , Windows is good for job creation.
and what was the ratio of windows computers to the others?
i got windows servers with 4 years uptime- no virus's on them
i have used windows since its inception and have no virus's and don't run a antivirus???
thats my real life experience as well. hope you do your weekly ubuntu patches, sure lot of security fixes in them.
|
cleo43
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 08/08/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:and what was the ratio of windows computers to the others?
I didn't talk about Windows workstations, just servers.
Once we got that Sasser virus, the Windows server was down for 2 weeks , MS couldn't fix it fast because it's a French version.
No I don't run Ubuntu updates. They bring headache more often than not.
|
Kart-Racer
Long Beach, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/31/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
cleo43 wrote:Quote:and what was the ratio of windows computers to the others?
I didn't talk about Windows workstations, just servers.
Once we got that Sasser virus, the Windows server was down for 2 weeks , MS couldn't fix it fast because it's a French version.
No I don't run Ubuntu updates. They bring headache more often than not.
So its Windows fault that a virus got by a weak firewall ?
|
pulsar
Lewisville, NC
Moderator
Joined: 12/30/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
Kart-Racer wrote:cleo43 wrote:Quote:and what was the ratio of windows computers to the others?
I didn't talk about Windows workstations, just servers.
Once we got that Sasser virus, the Windows server was down for 2 weeks , MS couldn't fix it fast because it's a French version.
No I don't run Ubuntu updates. They bring headache more often than not.
So its Windows fault that a virus got by a weak firewall ?
There was plenty of blame to spread around for the Sasser Worm infestation, which brought several large companies and many smaller ones to s stand still.
Microsof released a security update. A Russian hacker reversed engineer the update and created the Sasser worm to attack the vulnerabilities the update patched. The worm couldn't affect systems that had applied the update. So, one might immediately lay blame on IT departments that didn't push out the patch that was released by Microsoft 3 weeks before the Sasser outbreak. IT departments could also be blamed for poorly configured firewalls.
The experience with Sasser changed the way a lot of IT departments processed security updates.
Tom
|
|
|
cleo43
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 08/08/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
@LittleBill
I am (was) an AS/400 guy. We tend to be emotional, and love what we are involved with. I know because during the company meetings each platform people defended their and look down upon others, just like football, baseball... teams. So I don't want to continue, because emotional debates like this lead to nowhere. Just to let you know hacking a secured AS/400 is pretty tough, not because it's unpopular. That's when I looked for something to do for retirement (to keep Alzheimer away), I clicked in with Linux right away just because I liked its Security. It's not a biased choice because at that time I knew a little bit about Windows, and absolutely zilch about Linux.
|
1492
No. Virginia
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2005
View Profile
|
Getting back on topic. If you decide on using software based encryption, something else to consider is whether you really need full disk encryption? It can slow down your system to some degree. And not all may prefer or need to have the OS and software programs encrypted, just sensitive data.
Another option would be to use a virtual encrypted disk. Basically, a container which encrypts all files placed within it. You just need to supply a password once to mount the drive, then can read and write data files as you normally would. This setup would also allow others to use your system and programs for their own use, but do not have access to your encrypted files on your virtual drive.
There are a couple of free apps available. I use the free version of SafeHouse Explorer on my desktop PC. You can create any number of virtual encrypted drives up to 2TB in size on any existing HD. It will be assigned it's own drive letter. You just need to supply the password once to mount the virtual drive so your programs will have access to it. Files are encrypted and decrypted on the fly. Once you're finished, just unmount the drive with one click, and the virtual drive will no longer be visible to your programs or Windows Explorer. You can also easily create encrypted USB flash drives which can include a portable Safehouse app, so can be decrypted on any other PC.
I just upgraded my Toshiba notebook to a new Asus, and deciding which encryption method to use. I will likely stick with full disk encryption for my notebook, either using the open source Diskcryptor or upgrade the factory drive to a faster self encrypting HD. I personally feel if someone is going to steal my notebook, then I will deny them use of it by blocking access to the OS and programs, and not just the data. Not as concerned with my desktop, so just block access to sensitive data.
I got into encrypting personnel data late in the game, but now consider it as important as making routine data backups.
|
msmith1199
Central, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/07/2001
View Profile
|
Okay, I got Windows 7 Ultimate and tried to use Bitlocker. Turns out you need a special chip hooked to the Bios in order to use Bitlocker. After running through all the Microsoft checklists I figured out my computer doesn't have it. But that was okay because Ultimate also comes with a smaller encryption feature that allows you to encrypt individual folders on the computer. That's actually more what I was looking at anyway so I'm using that feature.
But here's the question on the file encryption, when I select the folder and select to encrypt the folder it runs through the folder and is encrypting eveything. I can use all the files in the folder just like regular as long as I'm logged on to the computer under my name. If I log on as guest I can't get to the folders. So it appears the only password required is the windows log on password. So I changed that password from what was a four digit number to a much longer password just to make it more secure.
So the real question, how secure am I now? My main concern is the computer is located in my office in a business park. I have an alarm on the building, but we all know somebody could smash a window and be gone with the computer even with the alarm. I'm not trying to protect the contents from the CIA, but if somebody does grab the computer the odds are it will be some meth head who may want to use the contents for ID theft. How skilled of a computer hacker would it take to get into the file contents with the Windows Ultimate file encryption?
2004 National Tropi-Cal T-350, Class A, Triple slide, 330 HP Cat DP.
2006 Dodge Dakota 4x4 or
2002 Harley FLSTF Fat Boy on a Trailer or
2004 Polaris Quad on the Trailer
|
1492
No. Virginia
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2005
View Profile
|
I believe Windows has included file/folder encryption capabilities, Encrypting File System (EFS), since WIN 2000. If that's what you're using, be sure you make a backup copy of your encryption certificate and key. If your certificate gets corrupted or missing, then you won't have access to your encrypted data.
IMO, it's a lot more work to encrypt individual files/folders than to create a virtual encrypted disc on your current drive. You would then just have to drag-n-drop or save files to the encrypted virtual disc, and they would be encrypted/decrypted on the fly. It would require that you supply a separate password to initially mount or open the virtual disc, which gives the virtual disc it's own drive letter for access just like any other drive for your applications, but would also allow you to keep a separate password from your Windows User Account. Then, if someone breached your User Account, they still would not have access to your files in your encrypted virtual disc without a separate password.
When you shut down your computer, the encrypted virtual disc is closed(unmounted) and appears just as another single Window's file with scrambled data. You can also manually close or open it as many times as you need during your session. Encrypted virtual disc files can also be backed up just like any other Windows file.
|
msmith1199
Central, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/07/2001
View Profile
|
The EFS system isn't that bad. You can encrypt entire folders such as My Documents all at the same time. I started to do that but that folder also contained about 20 gigs worth of photos so it said it would take 28 hours to encrypt. So I stopped it and then went and encrypted individual folders that had potentially confidential documents in them. I don't need to encrypt the photos, nothing there that I care if it becomes public. It only took a few hours for the computer to encrypt what I wanted. And now that the folder is encrypted anything I save to those folders will automatically be encrypted too. So it sounds like it works just like your virtual disk. And I did save a copy of the encryption key to a thumbdrive.
|
|
|
