Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 29 September 2009

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Cleanup

I placed a similar comment on User Talk:Techdoctor as well. Secure USB flash drives seem to be an interesting topic. However, as someone else already remarked, it reads like an essay or magazine article where the author tries to provide arguments to convince the reader. Maybe these arguments are from publications. There are a number of references, but it is not clear which reference makes what argument, and which arguments are your own opinion. The easiest way to deal with it is to use something like

  <ref></ref>

directly after each statement, and

  {{reflist}}

at the end of the article. Moreover, the article should start with a short definition of what a secure USB drive is, rather than with an argument, and this short definition can be worked out later in the article. - Han-Kwang (t) 08:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

The current article I see some assertions that are not referenced. I suggest a rolling list below

Check List

1. Hardware v Software Encryption

The article claims that Hardware encryption has been "functionally" replaced by strong software encryption. I suggest that the author is using too low a bar for this judgement. Hardware and Software encryption may be equivalent from a cryptographic standpoint but from a "functional" or practical view hardware offers a device centric protection independent of the Operating or file system. here's an example where a software based solution would fail the text below comes from a SANdisk whitepaper I'm not putting this paper forward as first source as it is itself unreferenced but it indicates the issue.

Cold Boot Attack

Very recent research by a team at the highly respected Princeton1 University points to how a little known characteristic of DRAM memory can serve as a window of opportunity for a cold boot attack.

DRAM memory is used to store data while the system is running. After power is removed, all content is deleted in a gradual process that can take anywhere between a few seconds and up to a few minutes. If the chip is cooled by artificial means, the content can be retained for as long as 10 minutes.

This characteristic of DRAM memory enables a hacker to read the memory content by cutting power and then performing a cold boot with a malicious operating system. This is deadly for disk encryption products that rely on software means to store encryption keys. An attacker can cut power to the computer, then power it back up and boot a malicious operating system that copies the memory content. The attacker can then search through the captured memory content, find the master decryption keys and use them to start decrypting hard disk contents. To retain the content for a longer interval, the hacker can simply chill the DRAM chip before cutting power.

A hardware-based encryption system is not vulnerable to a cold boot attack since it does not use the host RAM to store the keys.

• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• Start-Class Computer hardware articles
• Unknown-importance Computer hardware articles
• Start-Class Computer hardware articles of Unknown-importance
• All Computing articles