If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
Slimer wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Slimer wrote: Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be unreadable within Windows. Here's 25¢ - call someone who gives a ****. Exactly the kind of response I would expect from a Linux loser. With you guys, the solution is to either ignore the problem or to insult anyone who brings it up. Later, you unwashed, bearded, obese "men" wonder why your toiletware only appeals to about 1% of the world's population. Here's $39.95 - go renew your anti-virus program for a year. -- -bts -This space for rent, but the price is high |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On 2015-05-30 1:14 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Slimer wrote: Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Slimer wrote: Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be unreadable within Windows. Here's 25¢ - call someone who gives a ****. Exactly the kind of response I would expect from a Linux loser. With you guys, the solution is to either ignore the problem or to insult anyone who brings it up. Later, you unwashed, bearded, obese "men" wonder why your toiletware only appeals to about 1% of the world's population. Here's $39.95 - go renew your anti-virus program for a year. You're a Linux loser, you don't even HAVE $39,95 to spend. -- Slimer Encrypt. - "NTFS is just slightly faster than apples HFS. And that is the slowest FS of all. EXT 4 is several times faster than NTFS, and *that* is the reason you dimbulbs now troll against EXT4." - "Like NTFS, which is at best at beta stage right now?" (Peter "the Klöwn" Köhlmann lying shamelessly about NTFS to desperately defend the fact that ext4 has been shown to corrupt data in Linux kernel 4.0.x) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:06:42 -0400, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-29 4:46 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Clarify: My Linuxes can also read *and write* NTFS, without any issues. This can give you an idea of what Linux does wrong. Linux developers need to learn how to comply to NTFS' rules which they don't at the moment. I clicked in your link, when I see words like 'dimbulbs' I generally ignore the rest of the post. I've had no problem sharing an ntfs partition between Linux Mint and Windows7. There is a slight problem with a shared TrueCrypt container, when I open in windows after using it in Linux, I get a dialog suggesting an improper closure. There is no real problem. Not sure what the complaint about ext4 might be, I don't see any connection between ext4 on one partition and ntfs on another. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:04:01 -0400, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-29 1:33 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be unreadable within Windows. So you use one OS to write what to the other system are illegal characters, then call us dimbulbs. Nice going Slimer, and apt username I might add. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
dave wrote:
Slimer wrote: Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be unreadable within Windows. So you use one OS to write what to the other system are illegal characters, then call us dimbulbs. That's always his way, and is why I replied as I did. Nice going Slimer, and apt username I might add. Very true. -- -bts -This space for rent, but the price is high |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On 2015-05-30 2:47 PM, dave wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:04:01 -0400, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-29 1:33 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Stef wrote: Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues. My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues. Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be unreadable within Windows. So you use one OS to write what to the other system are illegal characters, then call us dimbulbs. Nice going Slimer, and apt username I might add. I never called anyone a dimbulb. That word is idiotic to begin with. However, before copying to an NTFS filesystem, Linux's implementation should be aware that certain characters are not permitted and alert the user before allowing him to change the filenames. Since it doesn't Linux is indeed responsible for an unreadable file. Every other operating system which includes NTFS support understands this, why can't Linux and its pre-teen developers? -- Slimer Encrypt. - "NTFS is just slightly faster than apples HFS. And that is the slowest FS of all. EXT 4 is several times faster than NTFS, and *that* is the reason you dimbulbs now troll against EXT4." - "Like NTFS, which is at best at beta stage right now?" (Peter "the Klöwn" Köhlmann lying shamelessly about NTFS to desperately defend the fact that ext4 has been shown to corrupt data in Linux kernel 4.0.x) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:45:10 -0400, Paul wrote:
Peter Jason wrote: ******* In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW, take your time, change how the drive is connected to the computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection will be readable. In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table Paul Thanks. To detail further, I bought this 3TB disk back last October (2014) and I can't remember if I TrueCrypted it. All the usual passwords don't work. I don't want to reformat it because I'll lose data. Is there any way to determine what encryption software has been used on a HDD. It's not BitLocker because this would be indicated in explorer. I may have stopped installation before the formatting stage because this takes time for 3TB. I have put another TrueCrypted into the other USB3 socket and I get two descriptions in Disk Management: (1) 3TB HDD: "2794GB RAW, Healthy Primary partition. (2) TrueCrypted unmounted 30GB Flash drive: "30GB RAW, Healthy active primary partition. The only difference is the "active". Is this significant? Maybe someone else knows the answer to that, as I've never used TrueCrypt (or Bitlocker). Obviously, for full disk encryption type products, there has to be a mechanism to start things up. A small partition with the boot flag set, sounds like an excellent place for TrueCrypt to have a decryptor loaded. I don't know if it's possible to get plaintext from something like that, unless at least the boot loader is in a plaintext area. All my other drives work with TrueCrypt with the usual password, so the fault is probably with the locked-out HDD. Would the ''decryptor'' be somewhere on the HDD, on the platters or on the control card? Now, could you have the decryption thing, in a small partition on one of the other drives ? Maybe that's how it got broken in the first place. Unplugging the thing that helps the RAW disk become visible. I don't know if TrueCrypt works that way or not (can be spread over multiple disks and still work). Paul |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
Peter Jason wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:45:10 -0400, Paul wrote: Peter Jason wrote: ******* In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW, take your time, change how the drive is connected to the computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection will be readable. In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table Paul Thanks. To detail further, I bought this 3TB disk back last October (2014) and I can't remember if I TrueCrypted it. All the usual passwords don't work. I don't want to reformat it because I'll lose data. Is there any way to determine what encryption software has been used on a HDD. It's not BitLocker because this would be indicated in explorer. I may have stopped installation before the formatting stage because this takes time for 3TB. I have put another TrueCrypted into the other USB3 socket and I get two descriptions in Disk Management: (1) 3TB HDD: "2794GB RAW, Healthy Primary partition. (2) TrueCrypted unmounted 30GB Flash drive: "30GB RAW, Healthy active primary partition. The only difference is the "active". Is this significant? Maybe someone else knows the answer to that, as I've never used TrueCrypt (or Bitlocker). Obviously, for full disk encryption type products, there has to be a mechanism to start things up. A small partition with the boot flag set, sounds like an excellent place for TrueCrypt to have a decryptor loaded. I don't know if it's possible to get plaintext from something like that, unless at least the boot loader is in a plaintext area. All my other drives work with TrueCrypt with the usual password, so the fault is probably with the locked-out HDD. Would the ''decryptor'' be somewhere on the HDD, on the platters or on the control card? Now, could you have the decryption thing, in a small partition on one of the other drives ? Maybe that's how it got broken in the first place. Unplugging the thing that helps the RAW disk become visible. I don't know if TrueCrypt works that way or not (can be spread over multiple disks and still work). Paul They make it sound like there is some sort of "boot loader" on the first track of the disk. (An area sometimes used by Linux as well, for Grub stage 1.5) http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/root/pd...%201_26_09.pdf And the picture here, makes it sound like the goods are stored in the MBR. The MBR is kinda small to hold a user interface... http://security.stackexchange.com/qu...authentication Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
New HDD is ''RAW''
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:45:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
Peter Jason wrote: On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:45:10 -0400, Paul wrote: Peter Jason wrote: ******* In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW, take your time, change how the drive is connected to the computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection will be readable. In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table Paul Thanks. To detail further, I bought this 3TB disk back last October (2014) and I can't remember if I TrueCrypted it. All the usual passwords don't work. I don't want to reformat it because I'll lose data. Is there any way to determine what encryption software has been used on a HDD. It's not BitLocker because this would be indicated in explorer. I may have stopped installation before the formatting stage because this takes time for 3TB. I have put another TrueCrypted into the other USB3 socket and I get two descriptions in Disk Management: (1) 3TB HDD: "2794GB RAW, Healthy Primary partition. (2) TrueCrypted unmounted 30GB Flash drive: "30GB RAW, Healthy active primary partition. The only difference is the "active". Is this significant? Maybe someone else knows the answer to that, as I've never used TrueCrypt (or Bitlocker). Obviously, for full disk encryption type products, there has to be a mechanism to start things up. A small partition with the boot flag set, sounds like an excellent place for TrueCrypt to have a decryptor loaded. I don't know if it's possible to get plaintext from something like that, unless at least the boot loader is in a plaintext area. All my other drives work with TrueCrypt with the usual password, so the fault is probably with the locked-out HDD. Would the ''decryptor'' be somewhere on the HDD, on the platters or on the control card? Now, could you have the decryption thing, in a small partition on one of the other drives ? Maybe that's how it got broken in the first place. Unplugging the thing that helps the RAW disk become visible. I don't know if TrueCrypt works that way or not (can be spread over multiple disks and still work). Paul They make it sound like there is some sort of "boot loader" on the first track of the disk. (An area sometimes used by Linux as well, for Grub stage 1.5) http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/root/pd...%201_26_09.pdf And the picture here, makes it sound like the goods are stored in the MBR. The MBR is kinda small to hold a user interface... http://security.stackexchange.com/qu...authentication Paul Thanks Paul, I have to confess I'd forgotten an old password just now remembered. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|