Anything more secure than a password protected .img created in disk utility

subject says all.
Message was edited by: dnaginzter

256-bit encryption is what SSL certificates use (the "lock" symbol you see when you go to a banking website). They're highly regarded in the industry as pretty much the pinnacle of practical encryption.
Again, the password is usually the weak spot. Even with 256-bit encryption, if your password is "password" or "12345", a cracker will be able to access your files pretty quickly.
As usual, there's an xkcd page for this situation.
Matt

Similar Messages

Should I upgrade to Macericks now from 10.6.8 on my i-Mac(mid 2007, core 2 duo?). Will Mavericks be more secure than 10.6.8 ? 10.6.8 has been great, it runs great with all my apps but am concerned about future supportibility?

Should I upgrade to Mavericks now from 10.6.8 (i-Mac, mid 2007, core 2 duo)? Will Mavericks be more secure than 10.6.8 ? I have the latest version of 10.6.8 and have upgraded my memory to 4GB. This could be one reason for me to make the move now.
10.6.8 has been great, it runs great with all my apps but am concerned about lack of support now. I know my PC apps will not work but maybe some apps that work now will "walk away" from 10.6.8 and then there's the security question of above.
I am also concerned about iPhoto 9 transition to i-Photo 11 and compatibility of my Time Machine WD Passport HD (format: Mac OS Extended (Journaled) based on several questions in applicable forums.
Thanks for your help in this important decision!

If I were you I would stick with Snow Leopard. It's much better suited to your old hardware. That said:
Upgrading from Snow Leopard to Lion or Mavericks
To upgrade to Mavericks you must have Snow Leopard 10.6.8, Lion, or Mountain Lion installed. Purchase and download Mavericks (Free) from the App Store. Sign in using your Apple ID. The file is quite large, over 5 GBs, so allow some time to download. It would be preferable to use Ethernet because it is nearly four times faster than wireless.
     OS X Mavericks- System Requirements
       Macs that can be upgraded to OS X Mavericks
         1. iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) — Model Identifier 7,1 or later
         2. MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) —
             Model Identifier 5,1 or later
         3. MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
         4. MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) — Model Identifier 2,1 or later
         5. Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
         6. Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
         7. Xserve (Early 2009) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
To find the model identifier open System Profiler in the Utilities folder. It's displayed in the panel on the right.
Are my applications compatible?
         See App Compatibility Table — RoaringApps.
Upgrading to Lion
If your computer does not meet the requirements to install Mavericks, it may still meet the requirements to install Lion.
You can purchase Lion at the Online Apple Store. The cost is $19.99 (as it was before) plus tax. It's a download. You will get an email containing a redemption code that you then use at the Mac App Store to download Lion. Save a copy of that installer to your Downloads folder because the installer deletes itself at the end of the installation.
     Lion System Requirements
       1. Mac computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7,
           or Xeon processor
       2. 2GB of memory
       3. OS X v10.6.6 or later (v10.6.8 recommended)
       4. 7GB of available space
       5. Some features require an Apple ID; terms apply.

Is application developed by servlet more secure than jsp?

jsp has appeared, but someone still use servlet.
Those reason is that servlet can make application higher security. Is it true?

Servlets are no more secure than JSPs, because JSPs are servlets - they're just another way of building the same thing. There is nothing you can do in a JSP that you can't do in a servlet or vice versa.
Why switch to or from JSPs or servlets? - you should be using both. Use servlets for heavy processing logic and JSPs for presentation (MVC pattern). That way you get maximum separation of logic and presentation. You can pretty much let HTML developers work normally, then come along afterwards and stick a little bit of Java code in the page to make it all dynamic. Better still, you can create easy-to-use custom tags that your HTML developers can easily understand without needing any programming experience. This leaves you free to work on the logic in the back-end.

Acrobat XI Pro for OSX can't open password-protected pdfs created using Acrobat 9 Pro for Windows

I am having problems opening password-protected files created on a PC using Acrobat 9 Pro. I am running a MacBook Pro OSX 10.8.4 with Acrobat XI Pro. When I attempt to enter the password when prompted, a dialogue box pops up saying that I've entered the incorrect password. After many attempts, I am certain that the password entered is correct -- this is reinforced by the fact that i am able to open the same document using Mac's Preview software.
Any assistance would be appreciated!
Thanks.

I was suddenly having the same problem in Acrobat XI Pro for Windows (recently upgraded to CC from Acrobat X). For the past while I've sometimes had to use the "insert from file" tool to get a page added from another file. I couldn't figure out why dragging sometimes would no longer work, but was too busy to go looking for a solution until tonight.
The solution was given by JoshTatum24 above. Switch from a scrolling page display to single page display. Now I can drag pages between documents again. THANK YOU Josh!
Oh, and CORREAdmin, it does not matter whether the hand or arrow selection tool is active, my mouse pointer is always an arrow when positioned in the page thumbnails panel. Switching selection tools does not make a difference in dragging, but switching between scrolling and single page display definitely DOES make the difference.

Why does the new version of Firefox not integrate with Norton 360 Identity Safe. Problem for me because I use Norton 360 Identity Safe to manage my passwords and make it more difficult to use password protected website without that add-in.

I use Norton 360 Identity Safe to manage my passwords and it makes it difficult to use password protected website without that add-in.

Norton release Firefox 8 compatibility already, instruction are here
* http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-360/Firefox-8-Support-for-Norton-Toolbar/td-p/581640

Password Protect folders (non sparse disk image)

So there are a collection of files I have protected on my computer using the disk utility method that everyone asking this question uses. I am curious to know if there is any other way of doing it. I want to password protect a folder within this protected disk image just becuase i feel like being extra sneaky and careful at the moment. I mean I could just use another sparse disk image inside the original and use two different passwords but I'm trying to be creative and that could get confusing. Does anyone know of a way to password protect a folder or file without using the disk utility method in Lion? Even if it requires third party stuff

nails:
From your earlier posts I gather that you would like to have a high level of security for your data. If an encrypted folder does not do the job for you, you may want to consider FileVault. However, if you use FileVault there are to very important measures you must take: 1) You must remember your password. If you lose or forget your password you will lose aceess to your data permanently. There is no way around it. 2) You must leave adequate space to be able to disable FileVault, should you every need to do so. The encrypted sparseimage requires almost double the size of the image to be able to be expanded.
Here are a few articles that might be of interest to you:
A Word about FileVault
About Encrypted Disk Images
How to create a password-protected (encrypted) disk image
Please do post back with further questions or comments.
Happy Holidays.
cornelius

Password protect a file beyond disk image?

Hi,
I've made a password protected disk image file, but once it's opened the file can be opened without a password every time.
Is there a way to password-protect a file, so that every time you try to open it, it requires a password? (like the way you can encrypt a PDF...)
Thanks!

nails:
From your earlier posts I gather that you would like to have a high level of security for your data. If an encrypted folder does not do the job for you, you may want to consider FileVault. However, if you use FileVault there are to very important measures you must take: 1) You must remember your password. If you lose or forget your password you will lose aceess to your data permanently. There is no way around it. 2) You must leave adequate space to be able to disable FileVault, should you every need to do so. The encrypted sparseimage requires almost double the size of the image to be able to be expanded.
Here are a few articles that might be of interest to you:
A Word about FileVault
About Encrypted Disk Images
How to create a password-protected (encrypted) disk image
Please do post back with further questions or comments.
Happy Holidays.
cornelius

Can't read a password protected pdf created in windows on mac

I converted a word document to a pdf and password protected it with acrobat 9. When the pdf is opened in mac preview only the first page is visible. all other are blank. Would appreciate advice.

I can tell you in my testing that my results were consistent regardless of whether I typed the hyphen at the keyboard or pasted it in from a text document.
So, that still leaves us with "is this a bug?" or "is it a prohibited character?"
Obviously, in these days of concern over password strength, it is important to understand the range of available character set, so we can select effective (and legal) characters and not have to deal with the trial-and-error of trying to learn which characters to avoid.
I am also still confused as to why the exact same password, entered in the exact same manner succeeds on one platform and not another. Unless the input dialog is silently converting the character (which I think could only be diagnosed with a debugger), results should be consistent. After all, the "P" in PDF does stand for "Portable".
Do you have the resources to try and reproduce my test case? I would be curious to know if the problem occurs both ways or just Mac->Windows.

Password protected document created in Acrobat XI (Mac) can't be opened by Reader XI (Windows)

I have a document that I created and password protected using Acrobat 11.0.2 (Mac).
I can open it with the same password using Reader 11.0.2 (Mac) but not Reader 11.0.2 (Windows). On Windows I get an "invalid password" message.
Anyone else found this?

I can tell you in my testing that my results were consistent regardless of whether I typed the hyphen at the keyboard or pasted it in from a text document.
So, that still leaves us with "is this a bug?" or "is it a prohibited character?"
Obviously, in these days of concern over password strength, it is important to understand the range of available character set, so we can select effective (and legal) characters and not have to deal with the trial-and-error of trying to learn which characters to avoid.
I am also still confused as to why the exact same password, entered in the exact same manner succeeds on one platform and not another. Unless the input dialog is silently converting the character (which I think could only be diagnosed with a debugger), results should be consistent. After all, the "P" in PDF does stand for "Portable".
Do you have the resources to try and reproduce my test case? I would be curious to know if the problem occurs both ways or just Mac->Windows.

External HFS encrypted password change & Drive mounting in Disk Utility without password

I have two questions:
1. I have an external HFS encyrpted drive that was encrypted via Mavericks Disk Utility. I have the password for it in 1password but I cannot cut and paste it when it attempts to mount. It is a very long password and it would not be practical to type it manually. It seems that Apple does not permit pasting such passwords (I have also tried to copy the password to a sticky note and then into the drive mount password prompt with no results, thus it is not unique to 1Password). At any rate, to remedy this situation, I would like to change the password to something smaller and memorizable (which is very very unfortunate as I find this a gaping security issue for who, in their right mind will manualy type in a 60 character password every time?). I have not been able to locate a method to change this external drive's password. Any assistance would be greatly apprecaiated.
2. Alarmingly, I AM able to mount the drive WITHOUT entry of the password if I do a verify disk and repair disk. This is horrifying. This means that without any password someone can mount the drive just by running these utilities.
Thanks in advance.

You wrote: "It's definitely formatted for windows...I have Disk Warrior, but it doesn't see my drive "DiskWarrior only works on disks in Mac OS formats, e.g. "Mac OS Extended" (aka HFS Plus or HFS+), "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)." It won't fix disks in MS-DOS/FAT32 format.
There are PC-specific disk utilities, akin to DiskWarrior for Mac, so if you have a PC as well, a PC disk utility might help repair the directory corruption if run from a PC.
External drives, whether they're formatted for PCs or Macs, can be subject to the same causes of directory corruption discussed in See my "Data corruption and loss: causes and avoidance" FAQ. Some of those causes have nothing to do with hardware failure and many are preventable.
Good luck!
Dr. Smoke
Author: Troubleshooting Mac® OS X
Note: The information provided in the link(s) above is freely available. However, because I own The X Lab™, a commercial Web site to which some of these links point, the Apple Discussions Terms of Use require I include the following disclosure statement with this post:
I may receive some form of compensation, financial or otherwise, from my recommendation or link.

Encrypted drive will not accept password when re-mounting via Disk Utility

I have used the 'whole disk encryption' on one of my external HDDs. Sometimes i eject the drive when i don't need it because it's in a 4bay housing along with 3 other drives. I do this because OSX wakes up all my drives even for mundane tasks like safari browsing or even looking for a dictionary definition. But anyway, my problem is if i want to re-mount that encrypted drive from disk utility (left mouse click on greyed out drive and re-mount) it does not accept my password. I get the little shake like i typed it in incorrectly. Anyway, i tried it like a dozen times and received a dozen shakes of negativity.
If i swith off the drive unit and swith back on again the password is accepted just fine..
Can anyone else test this so i can mark it up as a Lion bug? Or is there something else i need to try?
Thanks
Si

Hi MacNewb1022,
Welcome to Apple Support Communities.
The article linked below has some great troubleshooting tips that should help you resolve the slot-loading SuperDrive issue that you described.
Apple Computers: Troubleshooting the slot-loading SuperDrive
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2801
Cheers!
-Jason

Does Time Machine utilize the password I created in Disk Utility?

Using Disk Utility, I created a volume (confidential.dmg) which contains personal information. Within Disk Utility, I also elected to require a password to open this volume.
Using Time Machine, I back-up the entire contents of my Mac to a fire wire drive.
If someone had possession of my fire wire drive, would they have to know the password I created in order to open confidential.dmg? Or are there other ways someone else could access the contents of confidential.dmg?
Thanks

Time Machine will just back up the encrypted disk image so yes, if somebody had access to your Time Machine they'd still need to know the password if they wanted to open it.

Is Arch's future more secure than Gentoo's present???

I just took a look at distrowatch and read this article:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future
So I just thought by myself "What the **** is going on with Gentoo?"...
The next thought was "What would the Arch community do if there would ever be some situation like that???".
And now here I am, looking for an answer.
I mean up to now the Arch developers and the community around them are the most friendly ones I have ever seen. But I was also worried how things would develop in future. I mean as mentioned in this article Gentoo was once the fastest growing Disto known to mankind and now according to this article they're messing up with all the potential the have had.
So since I think that Archlinux has the potential to be even better than Gentoo I was wondering how the people behind Arch will prevent situations like this? I mean compared to Gentoo Arch currently is rather small (like Gentoo also was in the beginning), but who knows what will happen in the future? And with more people there will be more different opinions. So besides the KISS philosophy is there anything else written down to secure the future of Arch so Gentoo's current problems won't happen?
Anyway, I was just thinking about that and wanted to ask the people in here and mainly the developers what they think about it? Does there exist something to prevent the problems Gentoo currently has?
Thanks for every answer!

cactus wrote:
haven't watched it yet..but it sounds interesting...
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid= … 1522818645
EDIT: Watched it. Turned out..it was pretty awesome.
Thanks for that link. I watched the video and tried to understand all of it, minding the fact, that I am actually not a open source developer - but in the end it turned out to be eligible for each and every type of community (also including the scarce ones where I either am or was in charge of a moderator title). It might be a bit offtopic, but I indeed have to be grateful to have access to material just like that. These are real professionals, which are still down-to-earth (no wonder, if one takes a closer look on what their work is like), sharing their knowledge for free. I have no problem with Google having a copyright on this material, as long as it is accessible for each and everyone and it is for free. In the end it turned out to change my point of view a bit, about what the open source community is really like and how to improve the climate of a community, minding its targets. I will definitely take a closer look at additional material on video.google.com, as this resource seems to be promising.
Thanks for your attention anyhow. Just in case this posting was inappropiate, I would like a TU/moderator to delete it for the community's sake.
Last edited by chaosgeisterchen (2007-03-13 21:44:51)

Is firefox ACTUALLY more secure than Internet Explorer 8?

Hello Mozilla forum members. I am currently a Firefox user. An NSSLabs test claims Internet Explorer 8 is the most secure web browser. Some other sources also agree. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Thanks!
Here is the link: http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSSLabs_Q12010_BrowserSEM_Summ_FINAL.pdf
== I was browsing through the Microsoft site and the NSSLabs site.

Depends on how much you want to trust a company that has a history of accepting vendor funding, like from M$.
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200912/3268/Can-you-trust-the-NSS-Labs-report-touting-the-benefits-of-IE8
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/091009-nss-labs-independent-testing.html
And you need to question why they were testing Firefox 3.5.7 in January 2010 when the very stable beta 4 of Firefox 3.6 was available at that time. I was using 3.6b4 and '''never''' had a problem.
AND......'''~~red:they were not testing the browsers~~'''. '''What, you say?'''
Look at footnote 1 on page 3 of the full report ( http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSSLabs_Q12010_GTRBrowserSEM_FINAL.pdf ):
'''''Note: This study does not evaluate browser security related to vulnerabilities in plug-ins or the browsers themselves.'''''
So what was NSS Labs testing? Section 1 (pages 5-6) explains that. Reading Section 1.2, they were testing the ability of Google Safe-Browsing (in the case of Firefox) and the protection that it affords in keeping users from even getting onto malicious sites. I do not know what the other tested browsers use for comparable protection. Do you? I would not depend on Google Safe Browsing or any other such service for my full protection. Would you?
Moving on, read Section 2.1.1 carefully...."''1,756 potentially malicious sites''" pared down to 562 sites, but their methodology in choosing the 562 sites is not explained. What if the other 1,194 sites had been included? Would it have changed the results or conclusions reached? You should be saying "Hmmmmmmmm" at this point.
Do yourself a favor:
-Read such reports carefully and '''in full''' (not just the summary) with your brain "in-gear".
-Keep all of your system defenses up-to-date, firewall, AV/AS, scan regularly with multiple scanners (none is 100% correct, 100% of the time). IMPORTANT: Never run over-lapping security applications (i.e., 2 firewalls, 2 anti-virus/anti-spyware) at the same time. Two is NOT better than one in this case.
-Do you know what '''services''' and '''processes''' are running on your system, why they are running and what the function of each might be? Do you '''actively''' monitor incoming and outgoing connections? Do you log connections and review them?
-Don't visit questionable sites (porn, warez, less than legal music and video download sites, etc.)
-Base part of your judgement on your own experience; have you experienced any security related problems with what you are using? If so, then make a change '''NOW'''!
Good luck.

UAG DirectAccess more secure than 2012 DirectAccess in edge scenario by default ?

I installed 2012 DirectAccess in Edge configuration, first interface connected to intranet and second interface connected to internet.
When I did port scanning from internet, to my suprise there is about 1000 port open to internet. 85% are high ports, and rest are well-know ports.
Ports like tcp 3389, tcp 135, tcp 445 are open to everybody by default.
Isn't this enormous security issue ? At least it should be mentioned somewhere ?
So options are, you manually configure windows firewall rules or you put your DirectAccess server behind edge firewall, or you build you DirectAccess with NAT.
With UAG DirectAccess you really did not have this problem, you opened to internet only the few ports that were needed for DirectAccess. UAG DirectAccess was easily built
without an edge firewall.
Thanks,
-oraat

Hi, Although technically Windows has a very good firewall a DirectAccess Server is an Edge device that should always be located behind a front-end firewall. And optionally in front of a back-end firewall. Maybe the following post I have answered provides
you a bit more information:
UAG to 2012 R2 - Edge Device concern
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/forefront/en-US/bf3a5e9a-6f06-4e72-a907-67df1672224e/uag-to-2012-r2-edge-device-concerns?forum=forefrontedgeiag
Boudewijn Plomp, BPMi Infrastructure & Security
Please remember, if you see a post that helped you please click "Vote as Helpful" and if it answered your question, please click "Mark as Answer".

Anything more secure than a password protected .img created in disk utility

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for