From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 21 11:29:06 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64479106566C for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:29:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E028FC0C for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:29:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id q6LBUYf1007804 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:30:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:30:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201207211130.q6LBUYf1007804@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck on FAT32 filesystem? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:29:06 -0000 > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:18:48 +0200 (CEST) > From: Wojciech Puchar > Subject: Re: fsck on FAT32 filesystem? > > > Indeed. > > > > But getting GELI certified and approved by the relevant > > institutions and agencies isn't that easy either. Yet without > > no idea what are you talking about. Then you would be well advised to keep pie-hole shut. Doing otherwise, as Lincoln put it, "removes all doubt." > As for any government agencies and corporations why you care about their > problems? Does it even *occur* to you that some people use FreeBSD in _business_ operations? Business (or even government) operations which just might have to comply with _laws_ that limit them to using resources that have been "certified" as doing what the law requires such tools do? C.P. has made it clear that she _is_ in am environment where compliance with government edicts on the subject of security _is_ an operational requirement. Including the mandatory use of 'certified' solutions for particcular issues. In her environment, geli could be used 'in addition to' a mandatory, "certified" solution, but *NOT* 'by itself' as a means of dealing with that mandatory requirement -- because it is *not* and approved and 'certified' means of satisfying that requirement. Whether or not you agree with, or even _understand_, the nature of the requirement is immaterial, and irrelevant to C.P.'s situation. She _does_ have to deal with those requirements, which you do not -- your lack of comprension of that =fact= not withstaning. --q6LBAU6u007680.1342869030/mail.r-bonomi.com--