Re:By encrypting it like the article was about....
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 15, 2007 06:47 PM
"By encrypting it like the article was about -- idiot."
No, the article was about hiding a filesystem, of which encryption is only a(n optional) part. (Clue: The title of the article is "How to hide an entire filesystem") Clearly, you didn't even read the article's title -- idiot.
Note that a filesystem doesn't have to be encrypted in order to be hidden, although doing so can make a hidden filesystem more difficult to find. And the article didn't even mention benchmarks. How would rfs4 perform in combination with different types of steganography, compared with other filesystems? Unknown, because: While the number of disk accesses for a plain (or encrypted) rfs4 may be lower than others, this advantage may disappear when combined with steganography. The reason: rfs4 may be optimizing things like seeks, order of writes, and so forth. When the filesystem is sitting in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.WAV, MP3, or JPEG file on another (possibly rfs4) filesystem, all of this optimization goes out the window. Your benchmarks are meaningless.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:By encrypting it like the article was about....
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2007 06:47 PMNo, the article was about hiding a filesystem, of which encryption is only a(n optional) part.
(Clue: The title of the article is "How to hide an entire filesystem")
Clearly, you didn't even read the article's title -- idiot.
Note that a filesystem doesn't have to be encrypted in order to be hidden, although doing so can make a hidden filesystem more difficult to find.
And the article didn't even mention benchmarks.
How would rfs4 perform in combination with different types of steganography, compared with other filesystems?
Unknown, because:
While the number of disk accesses for a plain (or encrypted) rfs4 may be lower than others, this advantage may disappear when combined with steganography.
The reason: rfs4 may be optimizing things like seeks, order of writes, and so forth.
When the filesystem is sitting in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.WAV, MP3, or JPEG file on another (possibly rfs4) filesystem, all of this optimization goes out the window.
Your benchmarks are meaningless.
#