Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Encrypt existing Time Machine backups? Date: 12 Oct 2015 22:27:59 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <1mc4v7w.18agada1f1q1iwN%nmassello@yahoo.com> <6Kmdne4aRMfDM4bLnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> X-Trace: individual.net X7MbQ85vU13ccc8zdWfwDQn3tZ1WyviTtLbkKBhHb2ML/RHbWi Cancel-Lock: sha1:ubI7+SydgKJmNbijiBOCLzgSX/E= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:32611 comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage:1076 comp.sys.mac.system:83346 On 2015-10-12, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-10-12 16:15, John Somerset wrote: >> On 10/12/15 9:54 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-10-12 08:58, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 19:56, John Somerset wrote: >> >>>>> Oh, I thought that encrypting a disk, as with Filevault, meant the >>>>> whole >>>>> disk had to be unencrypted to work. If memory can grab only what it >>>>> needs, that sounds much faster. >>> >>> Doh. I really misread what you wrote when I replied with the stuff >>> below. >>> >>> But yes, the drive remains encrypted and the data from the FileVaulted >>> drive is decrypted in memory on your Mac as needed, file by file (or >>> probably block by block) >>> >> Am I correct that if I encrypted a folder, I couldn't get at any file >> without decrypting the whole folder? > > As I understand it no. When you access the folder using the password it > decrypts what you're "reading" for display or use but doesn't write an > unencrypted version of the folder or files to disk. > > JR or others can correct or clarify. If we are talking about encrypted disk images, then I believe the decryption happens in memory as needed to access the file system on the mounted virtual volume. >> Correct or not, that was my concept of it. That's why I assumed >> Filevault needed to decrypt a disk to get access to any of it. It >> sounded time-consuming, with disaster always lurking. > > Nope. I've been using it for many years (previous version and current > File Vault 2 version) w/o issue. Naturally my system (Filevault2) disk > is also backed up very regularly with Time Machine and other static > backups as warranted for things I want in read-only completely offline > backup (DVD's). FileVault 1, the previous version which placed the user's home folder contents into an encrypted disk image, was much more problematic and way less secure. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR