Talk:Hardware-based full disk encryption: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:12, 17 April 2013

Revision as of 09:18, 17 April 2013

Line 42:

* This is purely my own opinion, but I think it's worth mentioning: the article reads like an advertisement one might find in a magazine, that is written in a style such that it will get mistaken for a magazine article. In other words, it's an advertisement that looks like a Wikipedia article, and gets around looking like an advertisement by mentioning more than one manufacturer.

* There is no discussion of any drawbacks of hardware-based disk encryption. While I am not well-versed enough in the technology to know what those drawbacks would be, I've never come across anything that had zero drawbacks. Does this cost more? Is it more labor-intensive to install? [[User:Lioux|Lioux]] ([[User talk:Lioux|talk]]) 01:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

::Agreed. The real problem with hardware encryption is that it's difficult to verify the crypto implementation (for backdoors and other weaknesses) and manufacturers have a track record of getting it wrong. Some relevant sources: [http://www.h-online.com/security/features/Enclosed-but-not-encrypted-746199.html] [http://www1.cs.fau.de/sed] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/09/the_doghouse_xo.html] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/the_doghouse_to.html] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/02/the_doghouse_dr.html] -- [[user:intgr|intgr]]&nbsp;<small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 09:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)