I sent this but it never went through, so here I send to you again:)
The main circumstance for a double key would be for a search and seizure
scenario. Nobody would know there is a second key needed to open the
persistent drive. And one would feel safe knowing there is a large
password protecting their persistent drive.
Another bigger issue that should be considered is: Implementing a
failsafe mechanism that wipes the persistent drive if a number of failed
attempts are made.
I really want that type of protection. Say after 5 failed attempts it
locks a user for an hour and after 8 failed attempts it wipes the drive
totally.
Thanks again for reading!!!
Anthony
MadX
Unless I missed something, it would make the persistent volume just as
secure as whatever protects the content of that other USB stick.
Presumably, that other USB stick would have a passphrase that the user
needs to enter manually. And one would need to keep that other USB
stick physically close enough to their Tails stick, so they can use
their Tails persistent volume. So I don't quite get what is the actual
security advantage this would bring. Can you please clarify how, and
under what circumstances, it would make some attacker's job harder?
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for sharing!
_______________________________________________
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to
tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
