Lots of enterprise Unix sysadmins, say that ACL is much more powerful than ordinary Unix read/right control. There are cases when you need ACL, and when 888 does not cut it.
Regarding ext3, it does not really protect your data well. SMART does not help. ext3 and NTFS are equally bad (or good) in protecting your data:
"Dr. Prabhakaran found that ALL the file systems [NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS] shared
. . . ad hoc failure handling and a great deal of illogical inconsistency in failure policy . . . such inconsistency leads to substantially different detection and recovery strategies under similar fault scenarios, resulting in unpredictable and often undesirable fault-handling strategies.
. . .
We observe little tolerance to transient failures; . . . . none of the file systems can recover from partial disk failures, due to a lack of in-disk redundancy.
In a nutshell he found that the all the file systems have
. . . failure policies that are often inconsistent, sometimes buggy, and generally inadequate in their ability to recover from partial disk failures. "
To make a long story short.
My data on NTFS is just as safe as my data on ext4.
By the way, my disk works OK and I do have backups.
I'm not interested in trojan horses or something which tries to guess users passwords. Nothing stops people from making thousands of trojan horses for Linux, but the problem with the trojan horses is, you have to execute them somehow. On Windows it was enough to connect to the internet or LAN to get a virus. I don't know how something like this can have a place (maybe broken design, some bug...).Quote:
Uses multiple strategies for exploitation, including brute-force username and password combinations
So rather than showing that all filesystems are equal, the article actually suggests that the EXT4 filesystem is superior in terms of data security (unless NTFS also implemented those features, which it might have).
I meant 2007, not 1997 of course. I'm still not used to this whole "new millenium" thing.
So, fine, some flaws might have been corrected in ext4, but if you read the PhD thesis (which I have) you will see that only some flaws are corrected. Not everyone.
And besides, hardware raid also has lots of flaws and is not safe either. Probably you knew that as well:
In other words, I would not trust on NTFS nor ext4. There is no research on ext4 as I know of, but that does not prove that ext4 is safe.
If course, FS "could" additinally CRC the data, but thats what happens if you add encryption system on top. Encryption system on Windows - fail, whole internet of users who had system failures (even minimal) lead to inconsistency and complete data loss due to inability to decrypt it back.
It is not relevant of FS, it does not make ext any less secure.
But if you happen to trust ntfs any more than ext, oh my - well, its your personal choice :))