Ultimately, the length and complexity of the password / use of keys is what makes encryption good. Nearly all the common encryption algorithms out there are crackable if physical control is compromised and weak keys are used. Speaking from experience, all but one below I've been able to crack years ago with a decent gpu / distributed processing and weak pass-phrase (less than 12 chars). Keep in mind, more chars is not always correlated to success of encryption, refer to targeted dictionary attacks, rainbow tables, and the chair to keyboard factor. * Ubuntu (and I believe Debian) give ecryptfs option for home directories (folder level encryption) via the gui installer. Tied to your user account password, which is it's weakness, strong pw hashes / salting help a lot for exposed passwd and shadow files * TrueCrypt can also do a home directory or simple container in Linux, with pass-phrase and various keys, but not full disk encryption unless on Windows * Several paid options out there, often for enterprise, McAfee is a common one, handle full disk, complex encryption for nearly all platforms * More manual options include dm-crypt + LUKS, with pass-phrase and various key options (similar to a more manual and CLI like Windows BitLocker). Does the job well, but tough upfront learning curve -- Jeremy MountainJohnson Jeremy.MountainJohnson at gmail.com On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:59 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote: > agreed. afterall anything is possible. but little is likely. > > you can be as paranoid as you like. or, you can try relaxing a bit. > > but logic can't cure paranoia. humor perhaps has a better chance. hence > > "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!" > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >