> Prehaps compression followed by encryption is an approach to see how much
compactness can be achieved …
Yes, if you are going to use both, you have to compress first,
then encrypt. Reverse order annihilates compression,
because encrypted data are (or at least they should be)
too random to be compressed.
L.
There is one major use of filter that preventing removable media access and block level encryption can’t do. And it’s big - network I/O. No, a network traffic encryptor cannot do what this can. But that’s as far as I’ll say.
xxxxx@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi!
I have seen several posts related to encryption/decryption filters. I have few questions.
- What is the objective of implementing such a filter?
- Many objectives like preventing a file being taken outside the organization on removable media can be achieved by just disabling them. Why is a filter needed?
- A user wants to keep all his information encrypted. He also wants to take the files on removable drives in encrypted form. And he has some more machines with the filter running on it. Whenever he wishes to open the file on those machines he will be prompted for the password. But cant this be done by utilities like WinZip? Of course it will not provide automatic encryption/ decryption on local machine.
This along with 1-2 minor uses did not seem to be a strong reason for building a commercial product of this kind.
The use of encryption/ decryption filter seems to be more wierd than the technical aspects.
May be my limited knowledge in the domain constrains me from getting a much broader picture.
Any suggestions and comments are invited.
Thanks!
Ayush Gupta
Questions? First check the IFS FAQ at https://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=17
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@alfasp.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
–
Kind regards, Dejan
http://www.alfasp.com
File system audit, security and encryption kits.