 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Some shredders will destroy CD's BTW...
I gotta get me some of that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Some shredders will destroy CD's BTW...
>
> I gotta get me some of that...
Ours does CDs, it's not particularly exciting :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Some shredders will destroy CD's BTW...
>>
>> I gotta get me some of that...
>
> Ours does CDs, it's not particularly exciting :-(
True. But I do have a pile of about 40 CDs here that I need to destroy.
I mean, I *could* just snap them in half with my bare hands... but it's
quite painful. OK if you gotta destroy beyond two CDs, but 40? No thanks...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Some shredders will destroy CD's BTW...
>>
>> I gotta get me some of that...
>
> Ours does CDs, it's not particularly exciting :-(
>
Mine does, and be prepared to wear safety glasses while doing it
(especially DVDs the 2 layers really make things messy) I usually wind
up finding shards of CD or DVD somewhere across the room after
shredding. I always enjoyed bending a CD slowly until it gives way.
Polycarbonate is tough stuff, but when it reaches its failure point, it
fails spectacularly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Polycarbonate is tough stuff, but when it reaches its failure point, it
> fails spectacularly.
...and painfully, if you're holding it wrong. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Polycarbonate is tough stuff, but when it reaches its failure point, it
>> fails spectacularly.
>
> ...and painfully, if you're holding it wrong. :-S
Hmm, the last CD I tried to snap... wouldn't. I ended up bending it back
and to several times until it cracked. Very different to the first CDs that
seemed to shatter instantly if you bent them past 10 degrees.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> And if you *need* those backups, 'cause the darn HD of the workstation
>> crashed, they are extremely secure? :)
>
> You put an escrow key on a floppy and lock that up somewhere separate.
Yep, that has to be possible and you'll need to realize to do it before
it's needed. It's even worse to realize you can't *use* your backups
than realizing you don't even have them.
> Some things could be easier, yes. :-)
Well, OTOH no, they couldn't. That's pretty much one of the few
possibilities to keep the backdoor locked.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:19:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What is the current max length of a Windows password?
>
> I'm not sure, and it changes depending what you're doing. Just logging
> in locally? Logging into a domain? Talking over SAMBA? Talking to a
> non-windows-NT SAMBA? It's at least 14 characters, and if you make it
> that long, the 7+7 broken hash in the login doesn't work any more.
> (I.e., at 14+ characters, you can't brute force it nearly as easily as
> at 13 characters, because Windows no longer exhibits the flaw that makes
> it easy to crack.)
Well, unless you need NTLM authentication - then the weakness is still
there. But 14 characters is what I recall.
>>> [1] Bonus points to any flames about AD, that you can install windows
>>> on something other than C:, and so on.
>>
>> Not sure I follow here - unless you're saying that with AD the key
>> isn't stored on the local machine...
>
> Only that saying "C:" is a generic term, and I'm aware of that fact.
Oh, I see. And was that a request for flames on AD? Because I could
come up with a couple. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:51:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> What is the current max length of a Windows password? I know my 20-
>> character password had to be cut down to 14 IIRC on WinNT and possibly
>> Win2K - the dumb thing seemed to be that when setting the password, the
>> password got truncated and then hashed, but when checking, it was
>> hashed as is (or vice versa), so if you set your password to a value
>> that was too long, you could never login.
>
> Isn't that cute?
>
> Yes, I ran into this too. I think it varies depending on whether you use
> LANMAN or Kerberos. (So... it's nice and reliable then!)
Yep, that it would - Kerberos wouldn't have the same limitation as NTLM.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:50:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Because not all sysadmins follow their manager's instructions.
>
> ...which is kind of the point I was making. ;-)
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
