From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 20 17:40:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF67106566B for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:40:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com (mail-gg0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D848FC0A for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2so5020118ggn.13 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=olHySKzSLeTdsAwgiknK5dDk5xHLW2Xoc6SGW6S4eQ0=; b=bxmmYTWrymZlT2bHjWlz2VXpC2SYe95MglIQZn+NOl4MGZqKytNYJlOczRNL98EMMk GP846iaR7JJLCYWD8PdGwnJZAdxQDqUW9/Yuj2hhPPLvg3QG/ji320KPbvICmhK8VqO9 2sWAH+op/SQEta1hfzzwBC3pg+F/10djjD3EaV7l7ImtO/pGxZb5u8gGgx7kWXTMSTg1 Ul4q8U5lmg7T5XDJ24SbdY4r3gmD6mIQRc4sn+zu1pIowesV0s6vGG6yzAEbh/hgAD+G qouELf44+f1gfQ4uGZEW23sNHlKoZCVeWzTmt+78ZRfKVtSOQ1+pFLh9H9wadZX44Vhi 7pLA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.46.230 with SMTP id y6mr5087602igm.20.1342806027283; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.124.41 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [93.221.171.129] In-Reply-To: References: <201207181558.q6IFwM7f033708@fire.js.berklix.net> <201207190253.q6J2r3p0070058@mail.r-bonomi.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:40:27 +0200 Message-ID: From: "C. P. Ghost" To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVSqRZOwhKTNweRN6ziLltK2BdA0jiZJDhXHGE08zqqQxcIFSpfW4ho4d6LJz9N/TQUSbm Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck on FAT32 filesystem? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:40:33 -0000 On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> regulations have been tightened further recently as to mandate >> sector-level encryption of the hard disks as well, just to be on the >> sure(rer) side. At least in certain particularly sensitive areas. > > which may be a proof that governments know backdoors alloving recovery > from encrypted drives using builtin "hardware encryption" (FDE). > > Not that easy with geli ;) Indeed. But getting GELI certified and approved by the relevant institutions and agencies isn't that easy either. Yet without getting both, we aren't allowed to rely on GELI as the sole encryption-provider. As an add-on on top of a certified solution, GELI wouldn't hurt though: it's a decent piece of code. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/