|
Noseedam
|
 |
« on: July 17, 2008, 09:28:36 AM » |
|
as it stands, i would think that de/encrption software would be the easier, quicker to used than hider software, as in real life encryption software is relatively easy to find, and quicker to run, and also smaller files (generally), and since it stills shows them in the files, i would think taht because of the ability for the hiders to make it not show in the files, that i would be the harder to get to and use (just my opinion, but it makes sense, ri?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
human
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2008, 01:51:43 PM » |
|
A real rootkit uses much more resources to hide a file/process...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
virus man
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2008, 05:53:52 PM » |
|
as it stands, i would think that de/encrption software would be the easier, quicker to used than hider software, as in real life encryption software is relatively easy to find, and quicker to run, and also smaller files (generally), and since it stills shows them in the files, i would think taht because of the ability for the hiders to make it not show in the files, that i would be the harder to get to and use (just my opinion, but it makes sense, ri?)
Hate to say it but until Vista, if I am not mistaken, all previous MS OS's included a program called Attrib. Windows OS's had it built into the shell. attrib +h filename.exe That would hide the file. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SGP is opening their forums for all. From now on all Tutorials and Help files that SGP releases will be available there. SGP's Forums. New World Order |
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2008, 09:56:59 PM » |
|
as it stands, i would think that de/encrption software would be the easier, quicker to used than hider software, as in real life encryption software is relatively easy to find, and quicker to run, and also smaller files (generally), and since it stills shows them in the files, i would think taht because of the ability for the hiders to make it not show in the files, that i would be the harder to get to and use (just my opinion, but it makes sense, ri?)
Hate to say it but until Vista, if I am not mistaken, all previous MS OS's included a program called Attrib. Windows OS's had it built into the shell. attrib +h filename.exe That would hide the file. there's also a notepad .bat equivalent |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
human
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2008, 10:23:33 PM » |
|
You can see it easily. It is a baby playing...
I mean a rootkit, a hacker technique, which hides the files and makes impossible to kill the process...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2008, 10:27:38 PM » |
|
You can see it easily. It is a baby playing...
I mean a rootkit, a hacker technique, which hides the files and makes impossible to kill the process...
if it running then you can't delete either, but you could also just use unlocker and delete (really useful program at school, believe me) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
human
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2008, 04:51:59 AM » |
|
You can see it easily. It is a baby playing...
I mean a rootkit, a hacker technique, which hides the files and makes impossible to kill the process...
if it running then you can't delete either, but you could also just use unlocker and delete (really useful program at school, believe me) A rootkit uses system registery keys, making it imposible to delete it. It makes the system to negate the deleting process because it is marked as a basic kernel file. The same happens when executing... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tiak
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2008, 05:58:35 AM » |
|
Eh... In real life there are multiple ways to hide a file, almost all of which are less resource-intensive than secure encryption. You can use operating-system provided hiding functions, which essentially are equivalent to changing a file name, you can attempt to camouflage a file in with others with a given file name, you can edit permissions such that it is not possible to get to a file, you can simply unmount a partition it is stored on, you can apply stenographic techniques, etc. etc. I assume that the automatic hiders use some combination of these techniques, but all of these require significantly fewer resources than applying a block cypher on a file of similar size.
I do agree that encryption needs some sort of an upgrade though. As-is it has 1/3 the functionality of hiding, at a much larger resource cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
human
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2008, 06:20:16 AM » |
|
Eh... In real life there are multiple ways to hide a file, almost all of which are less resource-intensive than secure encryption. You can use operating-system provided hiding functions, which essentially are equivalent to changing a file name, you can attempt to camouflage a file in with others with a given file name, you can edit permissions such that it is not possible to get to a file, you can simply unmount a partition it is stored on, you can apply stenographic techniques, etc. etc. I assume that the automatic hiders use some combination of these techniques, but all of these require significantly fewer resources than applying a block cypher on a file of similar size.
I do agree that encryption needs some sort of an upgrade though. As-is it has 1/3 the functionality of hiding, at a much larger resource cost.
I totally agree with you. I posted rootkits as examples because they are used so much |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2008, 10:12:19 AM » |
|
Eh... In real life there are multiple ways to hide a file, almost all of which are less resource-intensive than secure encryption. You can use operating-system provided hiding functions, which essentially are equivalent to changing a file name, you can attempt to camouflage a file in with others with a given file name, you can edit permissions such that it is not possible to get to a file, you can simply unmount a partition it is stored on, you can apply stenographic techniques, etc. etc. I assume that the automatic hiders use some combination of these techniques, but all of these require significantly fewer resources than applying a block cypher on a file of similar size.
I do agree that encryption needs some sort of an upgrade though. As-is it has 1/3 the functionality of hiding, at a much larger resource cost.
actually, there are some flash drives that use encryption software, lexar is one, IronKey is another............ and lexars are really cheap (iron key isn't tho >.>) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
human
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2008, 10:29:49 AM » |
|
Eh... In real life there are multiple ways to hide a file, almost all of which are less resource-intensive than secure encryption. You can use operating-system provided hiding functions, which essentially are equivalent to changing a file name, you can attempt to camouflage a file in with others with a given file name, you can edit permissions such that it is not possible to get to a file, you can simply unmount a partition it is stored on, you can apply stenographic techniques, etc. etc. I assume that the automatic hiders use some combination of these techniques, but all of these require significantly fewer resources than applying a block cypher on a file of similar size.
I do agree that encryption needs some sort of an upgrade though. As-is it has 1/3 the functionality of hiding, at a much larger resource cost.
actually, there are some flash drives that use encryption software, lexar is one, IronKey is another............ and lexars are really cheap (iron key isn't tho >.>) I prefer hardware encryption. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
