[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Kai Hendry wrote: > The security NTFS provides is a joke. Esp. from the exploits I have seen > with Windows 2000. FAT32 imo is faster. However, I could not find stats to prove > it (can you prove the contrary?). NTFS Security is very good, for proof, take a NTFS HDD from a machine, stick in another, and try and access it, you'll find you can't do diddly, since you're not authenticated. The method used in NTFS is very similar to Linux/Unix, eg using SID's (basically the same as UID's). It's the rest of NT where the security vulnerabilities are found, and half of the time, just using a little intelligence when you setup the machine eliminates those. However, with regard to speed, I have to agree with you, don't have any of the references to hand, but I believe FAT32 is faster then NTFS, which would make sence, since it has none of the overheads found in NTFS caused by doing the security stuff. Keith -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.