What is Digg?60 Comments
- inactive, on 11/01/2008, -1/+61/Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility > New Image > Sparse Image > Encryption
you just saved yourself 15 dollars. - carterx, on 11/01/2008, -3/+36Why spend money when it's already part of OS X
- FuzzyCat, on 11/01/2008, -1/+27
http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php - digitalpencil, on 11/01/2008, -3/+28256 bit AES sparse image? why the ***** would anyone buy this?
- pyrates, on 11/01/2008, -7/+26I noticed this in the article:
This “protection” only works on the system the folder was “protected” on and requires the kernel extension to be running. If you disable/unload the extension or just boot in target disk mode, you will be able to access the data. The Tao Effect developers make no claims of security with this method of protection and even go out of their way to warn you.
They shouldn't even include this if it has this big of a security hole. They should force encryption in order to ensure the data is secure. But I prefer truecrypt anyways. Nothing like whole disk encryption. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/02/2008, -1/+15Exactly. Create an encrypted disk image and put your sensitive data in that. Problem solved.
- ORBAT, on 11/02/2008, -0/+12You do realize that POSIX permissions aren't a valid or sensible way to "hide" your data?
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/02/2008, -9/+20You can already encrypt folders in OS X. It's called an encrypted disk image. Buried as inaccurate spam.
- lalalalamppost, on 11/02/2008, -0/+7Preposition FAIL. I accidentally the whole irony.
- ORBAT, on 11/02/2008, -3/+9Yeah, because Windows obviously includes every feature anyone would ever want.
In any case this feature is already in OS X, no workaround needed. Your whine is baseless and not to mention clueless. How about shutting up if you don't actually know what you're talking about? - mingistech, on 11/02/2008, -5/+11You posting this article only shows how little you know about OS X.
On a Mac you can easily create encrypted disk images with up to 256bit disk encryption. They can be stored anywhere and act as a encrypted folder would in any other OS. - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+6just make sure it's a sparse disk image instead of a regular one.
sparse images take up as much space as their contents, unlike regular disk images that take up as much space as their capacity. - theblacknight, on 11/02/2008, -1/+6That was under the section for if you don't check the encryption box. So if you tell it to encrypt then it won't be readable without the passphrase.
- eihwaz, on 11/02/2008, -1/+6If you read the article before commenting here, you would have noticed that he says he already uses encrypted disk images.
- exscape, on 11/02/2008, -0/+4Windows had folder/file encryption before that, but AFAIK it still doesn't have password-protected folders, does it? XP didn't anyway. As long as you were logged in as your user, the files were available with no password. This is different.
BTW, I use a AES256 sparse image as well. - Balanced, on 11/02/2008, -0/+4No, they had CONTEXTUAL menus. Right-clicking is merely one way to access them.
- diggimator, on 11/02/2008, -0/+4Seriously, encrypted disk images ARE for all intents and purposes the same thing as encrypted folders usage wise. I use it all the time and it's no problem. The article says "while Microsoft’s EFS is no panacea of security and usability" so I can assume that whatever flaws each may have, neither is a whole lot better than the other. On top of that, if having to encrypt separate folders individually is annoying to you, a user can encrypt their whole home directory with FileVault.
It's strange how whenever there's a Windows vs OS X comparison made on digg, some people completely shutdown their technology literate part of their brain and startup with irrelevant stereotype based arguments. - MacParrot, on 11/02/2008, -0/+4I do not like that Knox on OSX.
Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them anywhere. I do not like them Jobs you slob - katsanes, on 11/02/2008, -2/+5Thanks to cross-platform Truecrypt, I don't even look at crap like this...
- coldfusion1970, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4Exactly. I cant see why i would pay for this.
- isny, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3Knox on Osx and Osx on Box
- scabbers, on 11/02/2008, -3/+6"If you disable/unload the extension or just boot in target disk mode, you will be able to access the data. The Tao Effect developers make no claims of security with this method of protection and even go out of their way to warn you."
What... what would be the use of that???? - tashtego67, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3The guy does point out that you can create an encrypted disk image but says it's too cumbersome. It does look like this add on has some HUGE security holes but my guess is it's for keeping fairly non technical types out of your stuff, your boss or spouse maybe. Maybe it's worth $15 to someone who wants to hide their porn in folders they already have created. IDK. Seems pretty easy to defeat to me.
- aristotle0dude, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4RTFA and I mean the whole article. That only applies if you opt to not encrypt the folder.
- jasonh1234, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3It's on a folder by folder basis. Unlike FileVault.
- Sketchcast, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4"In the plethora of accurate claims of superiority in Apple’s “I’m a Mac” ads"
Buried for typical smugness. I own a mac, cannot stand ***** like this. - penrod, on 11/02/2008, -2/+5Truecrypt will serve the same function. No reason to pay $15 for this product.
- Teridon, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3Seriously? You think someone with physical access to your machine can't get to your data?
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3And how many people out there would actually want to use encrypted folders? Oh yeah, a tiny sliver of the market. Quit bitching. The capability is already there if you really want it.
- Teridon, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3I was confused at first too, but this is referring to the "lock folder" option. The folder is "locked" but not encrypted.
- jasonh1234, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2That's the kind of stuff that makes "Average Joe/Non-Technical guy"s eyes glaze over.
Espionage seems like something Grandma could use. Disk Utility does not. - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2Yeah well if you have data that won't be decryptable in your lifetime without a key, then you're in the green.
Your philosophy only applies to ***** and DRM. DRM really because it tries to stop you from playing something that Is decrypt-able. - Teridon, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2What holes do you think it has?
- itistoday, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2You can't use disk images to encrypt your Mail folder, this can do that.
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2It's where the Hobbitses hides their porns?
- supermanred, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3Its been possible to set up a single folder "encryption in OS X for a long time. Just create an encrypted virtual disk in disk utility...
seriously, why do people who have never used a Mac write articles that include macs in the topic? - bigspooon, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1I believe you can do both. Although, in the readme, they caution about encrypting the entire harddrive.
Ive used this program for a while now and I think its awesome. definitely check this one out... - Nephersir7, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Introducing Linux....
- neutronphaser, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Do you just encrypt important folders, or have you tried the full system encryption?
- MadHarvey, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1He is probably referring to the difficulty of getting the original unencrypted data completely removed from your hard drive.
Law enforcement/etc have very expensive data recovery units that can often view something on a hard drive that was overwritten 100s of times.
Also, when you don't use full disk encryption, especially with windows, there is a large risk that information about the data you are trying to hide will stored unencrypted in other places for the OS.
So, when you are trying to hide something from Law/enforcement or the government, his point is probably valid. Unless you use full disk encryption and don't store anything sensitive until the disk is fully encrypted, you probably are just kidding yourself. If you are just trying to hide data on a laptop in case it gets stolen, then you are probably ok with folder encryption. - Matteos, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Make yourself at home?
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2Cumbersome works for me.
- coreyb, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1I guess it is similar to Knox, but Knox has been around for a long time...
- supermanred, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah, too cumbersome my ass. It takes like 30 seconds to make one.
- VivaNiagara, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1http://www.spyshakers.com/espionage/
- mrBitch, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1@RgyaGramShad RE: " /Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility > New Image > Sparse Image > Encryption "
just saved yourself 15 dollars. "
That's great, but it's still not as simple as right clicking the folder and selecting "encrypt". - pyrates, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I did RTFA and my point is that encryption should be mandatory, not optional.
- jasonh1234, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I thought I read somewhere that those had to be a fixed size and the size wouldn't change if you deleted the contents of it.
- r3zonance, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1"If you read the article before commenting here, you would have noticed that he says he already uses encrypted disk images."
Which then begs the question, what the hell is the point of this piece of software (seeing as something missing actually exists)? - humbop, on 11/02/2008, -2/+2Really. You talk like you're some computer whiz, but you don't know about making an encrypted disk image of any folder using Disk Utility?
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is