home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!fwi.uva.nl!maarten
- From: maarten@fwi.uva.nl (Maarten Carels)
- Subject: Re: Hard Partitioning vs Soft Partitioning
- Message-ID: <1992Sep14.155114.12338@fwi.uva.nl>
- Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mail.fwi.uva.nl
- Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
- References: <0095FEE7.1AAC7CE0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> <1992Sep13.153719.9483@bsu-ucs.uucp> <veloso.716472958@husc10>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:51:14 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- veloso@husc10.harvard.edu (Manuel Veloso) writes:
-
- >>something about how hard it is to get around fileguard
-
- >Actually, it's pathetically easy to get around fileguard, because it
- >doesn't disallow read-access from non-finder programs. I haven't tried
- >to change stuff, but copying is definitely possible.
-
- >Maybe if they enforced application-specific access to applications,
- >(ie: only the finder, system, and the application itself can access
- >the app) FileGuard would be better...but they don't.
-
- And even then, the mac is a non-protected machine. Imagine this
- hard disk switched off, mac on
- boot from a floppy, and switch the hard disk on.
- At that time, the mac is up and running, and no driver is loaded for the disk.
- Load a driver, but not the one that's present on the disk (that one is patched
- by FileGuard).
- Voila, you have the mac up and running, and the volume mounted with no trace
- of fileguard anywhere.
-
- The only protection such a product can give you is encryption of files. That
- protection is just as strong as the encryption technique used.
-
- I wouldn't allow fileguard or something like it within one meter of my mac...
-
- --maarten
-
- --
- In real life: Maarten Carels
- Computer Science Department
- University of Amsterdam
- email: maarten@fwi.uva.nl
-