<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Jim Popovitch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jimpop@gmail.com">jimpop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
The big question is whether the whole disk needs to contain entirely<br>
random data, or if a set of random data can be repeatedly applied to<br>
each sector/track/space/area/section/platter/etc. And if so, what<br>
would be the minimally acceptable size of a random set of data before<br>
re-use.<br clear="all"><br></blockquote><div>Hmm. If one knows in advance the size of the installed system then it would take less random data to pad the balance of the drive before the encryption makes the installed data look like background noise. <br>
<br>It may also be easier to use a null write process, install to encrypted form and then pad over the nulls with random data over time. Realistically how much secret stuff gets installed initially? The data comes later and that's the part for protection.<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br><br>