3 ms·

> the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force Sure, right, that's kinda what I implied with my post. As long as I hav

> the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force Sure, right, that's kinda what I implied with my post. As long as I have access to decrypted bytes in memory and I have access to: my eyeballs + pen + paper, then the jig is up. The TPM+BitLocker scenario would protect the data on the hard disk and prevent offline attacks and would prevent someone from trying to extract the key from the running OS. > the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force Ding ding, exactly. That's why I mentioned "Group Policy". At best, you could attempt to restrict user access to the LIVE mounted decrypted data... but at that point you're trusting the client and a dedicated individual would get around it. You'd almost need this: Request remotely-stored invididual encrypted file -> Receive it locally -> Decrypt locally. which would give you a chokepoint to be able to cut off access to the encrypted data, but there are a thousand problems with this scenario as well, just from a technical standpoint.

gizmo686 13y ago
>the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force What is this quote? >Request remotely-stored invididual encrypted file -> Receive it locally -> Decrypt locally. Is there any reason you wouldn't want to do it this way. Aside from the security benifits of having the data be in plain text for as little as possible (and eliminates a centralized point of failure), this also offloads CPU resources to the local computer, which is a win from a purely efficiency standpoint as well.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  >What is this quote? Sigh, no idea how that slipped onto my clipboard. I was looking up a good "hegemony" definition for an unrelated discussion. Sorry about that. I meant to reference the line in your post, but it's not important. >Is there any reason you wouldn't want to do it this way Hm, so I didn't spend a ton of time thinking about it, but it doesn't seem conventional to me and thus I'm inclined to think there's probably something "bad" obviously... but I'm not sure. It seems like it would be hard to have work "properly", in terms of actual day-to-day usage. For example, what if I really do need to access hundreds of 1GB files all day? Or a thousands of tiny files? Or one massive file? Etc. Additionally, you'd lose any advantage of having plain-text on server, like potentially losing collaborative editting/viewing, etc.

gizmo686 13y ago

>the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force What is this quote? >Request remotely-stored invididual encrypted file -> Receive it locally -> Decrypt locally. Is there any reason you wouldn't want to do it this way. Aside from the security benifits of having the data be in plain text for as little as possible (and eliminates a centralized point of failure), this also offloads CPU resources to the local computer, which is a win from a purely efficiency standpoint as well.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
>What is this quote? Sigh, no idea how that slipped onto my clipboard. I was looking up a good "hegemony" definition for an unrelated discussion. Sorry about that. I meant to reference the line in your post, but it's not important. >Is there any reason you wouldn't want to do it this way Hm, so I didn't spend a ton of time thinking about it, but it doesn't seem conventional to me and thus I'm inclined to think there's probably something "bad" obviously... but I'm not sure. It seems like it would be hard to have work "properly", in terms of actual day-to-day usage. For example, what if I really do need to access hundreds of 1GB files all day? Or a thousands of tiny files? Or one massive file? Etc. Additionally, you'd lose any advantage of having plain-text on server, like potentially losing collaborative editting/viewing, etc.