How strong is OS X File Vault encryption?
Is it any good?
>>53676333
>How strong is OS X File Vault encryption?
It uses XTS-AES 128 I think.
>Is it any good?
Yes. Due to being closed-source, you cannot 100% rule out backdoors I guess. But seeing how Apple is standing up against the FBI backdoor shit, I highly doubt it. Worst case scenario, Apple has a way in. You're safe against everyone else though.
>>53676458
Perfect!
>>53676333
>nonfree software
you might as well just turn yourself in to the FBI right now, because a party van is on its way.
>>53676661
Oh my god... I hate people like you!
Unfree sofware buhuu!
In fact, I'm using OS X, Windows 10, Gentoo
Furthermore the FBI can't do shit in my country
>>53676333
It basically asks you if you want to install a backdoor or not.
Click no and you are good to go.
>>53676705
You mean the iCloud decryption key?
I stored it elsewhere. In an AES 256 bit encrypted container in my ownCloud
I heard HFS+ is one of the worst filesystems.
It's sad because I kinda want to use Hackintosh, it's been working fine for me. I just don't know where this notion that the filesystem is worse than NTFS comes from. I just kinda want to know since there's no other filesystem that OSX will accept.
>>53676458
>Apple is standing up against the FBI
ayylmao
>>53676789
>I just don't know where this notion that the filesystem is worse than NTFS comes from.
>>53676789
I've heard that too but I had no problems with hackintosh apart from the initial setup and learning through breaking stuff.
>>53676333
>Is it any good?
No, since every single mac in existence on the planet is backdoored anyway.
>>53676915
Seems like a long rant for case insensitivity. I'm worried about fragmentation and data corruption.
>>53677023
Don't worry, it does both of those too. :^)
>>53676915
>so dumb that he struggles to make app for HFS+ systems
>meanwhile "hipsters" and "cucks" (as described by /g/) make apps for iPhone and Mac quite easily
so this... is the power of Linux...
>>53677175
No no, I'll fucking worry.
Why can't I just fucking grab this hackintosh thing and install it on ext4 instead like c'mon nigga
>>53677256
HFS+ is fine. It inherited most of the hate of HFS, which was actually terrible, without inheriting most of its problems.
HFS+ is optionally case insensitive. OS X will make it case insensitive by default, but it is an option you are welcome to set at the time of format.
It doesn't somehow randomly corrupt files like memesters on /g/ who have never used it and don't know how it works would like you to believe, and it doesn't fragment any more than any common linux filesystem.
>>53677343
Why is it insensitive by default though? What would be the problem of using a case sensitive FS?
In any case, I plan to use a 1TB drive as HFS+ as well rather than having to use extra software for it.
>>53677389
I've been using HFS+ for 4 years and don't see the upside of case-sensitive anymore.
>>53677389
>Why is it insensitive by default though?
Why does it matter? One isn't inherently better than the other, it's just a matter of not being used to it. Everything works fine on OS X with case insensitivity, and some things work better. Tab completion works even if you didn't use proper casing in the part you typed for example, without the need for a shell plugin to make tab completion effectively case insentive
>>53677499
Doesn't Mac OS X use zsh? zsh's tab completion on every system is case insentive.
>>53677560
>Doesn't Mac OS X use zsh?
It includes it in the base install, but users' shells are bash by default.
>zsh's tab completion on every system is case insensitive
And they needed extra code to do it on case sensitive filesystems. That's my point. Case insensitivity is often desirable in a shell, and using a case insensitive filesystem brings the convenience to shells that don't have it by default, like bash, without the need to add anything extra.
Shells are just one example anyway. Just because one shell emulates the behavior by default, doesn't mean it isn't good to have the real underlying behavior for other shells and other unrelated applications.
>>53677640
>And they needed extra code to do it on case sensitive filesystems
Not necessarily.
In fact, case insensitive filesystems need extra code to implement their insensitivity.
>>53677665
>In fact, case insensitive filesystems need extra code
I was talking about zsh. zsh absolutely needed extra code to make tab completion case insensitive.
>>53677688
Not necessarily.
>>53676697
>Nowthatswhaticalledgy.exe
>>53677722
>Not necessarily
Yes necessarily. You can't just magically match data you're searching for to different data without normalizing them first. Checking if any string starts with "Foo" will not work if a string starts with "foo" because "F" is not the same data as "f". You need to map them both to the same case before comparing them.
Here's some of zsh's source code to prove my point, since you obviously don't understand what you're talking about.
>>53676333
>Is it any good?
No. Use VeraCrypt or GPG2 instead.
>>53676967
Didn't realize Apple started the Mac line in 2011
Isn't having a mandatory recovery key bad?
>>53677964
Having what is effectively a second password that's 120 bits of random information won't decrease the security of an encrypted volume by any meaningful amount compared to the security of the normal passphrase.
If you just don't record it when the volume is encrypted, it may as well not exist. If an attacker has the power to determine that key, they absolutely have the power to determine your passphrase hundreds of orders of magnitude more easily.
>>53677389
>Why is it insensitive by default though? What would be the problem of using a case sensitive FS?
Maybe you think of the wrong thing here.
No matter how you format a drive with HFS+ it is always internally case sensitive. It knows that a file was named "fiLe" and not "file". However, it prevents the creation of two files named "fiLe" and "file" what is possible with a strictly case sensitive file system.
>>53679076
>No matter how you format a drive with HFS+ it is always internally case sensitive
You sure about that?
OS X question. I'm using a TL-WN823N USB WiFi adapter to connect to the Internet. I made the mistake of upgrading to 10.10 when it was made available, only to go through an exhaustive procedure to downgrade because the drivers weren't available for that WiFi adapter. I've just discovered that the 10.10 driver is now available, but not yet the 10.11. Don't even know for sure if they'll ever get around to it. I've sent an email to the support crowd but I don't expect a response to be honest.
My question is - does anyone know of another way around this short of purchasing a new USB WiFi adapter?
>>53680969
Have you tried just using the earlier driver on the newer OS version?
>>53681044
When I upgraded to 10.10, I did try the 10.9 driver, but it didn't work.
I have not tried the 10.10 driver on 10.11, but presume it'll be the same story.
I've got a limited and slow Internet connection, so don't wish to be fucking around downloading whole OS just to see if the driver will work or not. Then the long and annoying unofficial downgrade again.
>>53681090
Did you check to make sure there wasn't a native generic driver straight from Apple? Manufacturer drivers for generic hardware tend to be awful.
>>53681090
>I have not tried the 10.10 driver on 10.11, but presume it'll be the same story.
There were significant changes to OS X's networking stack between 10.9 and 10.10, so it's not necessarily as likely that the 10.10 driver won't be compatible with 10.11
I would really recommend you backup before upgrading or use a virtual machine to test it if you don't want to deal with downgrading.
>>53681131
No I didn't check that. I don't know how to check that. Can you help?
I'm not technically inclined, and spent about a whole month fucking around with downloading many seperate drivers in the hope one of them will work, chatting with people on a Mac IRC, one guy talking me through a long procedure, manually editing kext files, exhausting every solution. Using the Internet all on someone else's laptop. Oh man it was torturous.
>>53681189
Stop it you guys, you're filling me with hope. I'll long given up on this thing just working.
Shit. I might go through it again. How large is the 10.11 download?
>tfw 4GB daily cap, 550KB/s max speeds
>>53681238
>How large is the 10.11 download?
5.78GB
>>53676458
Kek, us gov can literally tell apple to put backdoor in the code and then appear to publicly refuse to cooperate with fbi. Apple is definately not secure. If you want secure choose verycrypt or dmcrypt
>>53679136
>You sure about that?
No, I actually made a mistake (read something wrong). No longer sure at all.
