Thread 106971681

And hash algorithm? Are certain ones faster than others to encrypt/create volumes?

i always choose ur mom's gaping hole, data miner

>>106971681 (OP)
Can't you target the server which contains the Epstein client list instead?

>>106971681 (OP)
you don't ever need anything more complicated than AES, unless you want asymmetric, which if you're asking such a stupid question, you don't

i use 7zip aes256 for encryption, then i open the archive in a hex editor and remove some of the data to a log file.
this corrupts the encrypted archive to the point where it doesn't even take the (potentionally keylogged) password anymore. intention CRC/EOF error

What's the point using it on Windows (a closed source operating system)?

>>106971681 (OP)
I use bitlocker. I don't mind the glowies looking at my porn because they have to keep it a secret, it doesn't affect my life in any way.

>>106971719
This. AES is the most studied cicpher in the world. You are almost infinitely more likely to be compromised by bad OPSEC than AES itself.

>>106971688
Which one is that?

>>106971739
Doesn't this still show the content of your files?

>>106971681 (OP)
CPUs have AES hardware support, anything else will likely be way slower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set

So use AES if you need your drive to not be sluggish

>>106971681 (OP)
AES so that I can securely encrypt my chinese poetry while having good read speeds

>>106973026
just the filenames

>>106973026
>>106973624
you can encrypt file names

rot16

>>106971681 (OP)
Cryptographic hashes are slow by design to hinder brute forcing.

>>106971681 (OP)
use case for full disk encryption?