Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?

On 10 May 2021 at 15:30:13 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
> backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
> runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
> overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?

Yes, it would be able to overwrite it. You'd want to either keep it
offline, which is obviously rarely useful, or use a NAS which does
snapshots of its data so you can revert to a previous set of files.

Mine does snapshots, it's a homebuild running the free TrueNAS operating
system. If something does go through and encrypts it, the warning I'll
get is an email saying "90% of your volume is full" because encrypting
the lot will definitely hit that barrier as new versions are written but
the old ones in the snapshots are also kept :)

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The dumbest people I know are those who know it all."
-- Malcolm Forbes

On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:

> Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
> backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
> runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
> overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?

If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
details here).

You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
topic.

--
Johnny B Good

In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
>
> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
>
> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
> details here).
>
> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
> topic.

I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.

--

Phil, London

On 11 May 2021 at 10:49:00 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
<thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:

> In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
> good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
>>
>> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
>> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
>> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
>> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
>>
>> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
>> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
>> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
>> details here).
>>
>> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
>> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
>> topic.
>
> I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
> identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
> encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.

If they're shares that are advertised on the network, with no security
or you've saved the user/pass into your own account, yep.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"But people have always eaten people!
What else is there to eat?
If the Juju had meant us not to eat people
He wouldn't have made us of meat!"
-- Flanders & Swann

In article <ifvja5Fdvh8U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
says...
>
> On 11 May 2021 at 10:49:00 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
> > good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
> >>
> >> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
> >> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
> >> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
> >> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
> >>
> >> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
> >> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
> >> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
> >> details here).
> >>
> >> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
> >> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
> >> topic.
> >
> > I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
> > identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
> > encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.
>
> If they're shares that are advertised on the network, with no security
> or you've saved the user/pass into your own account, yep.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie

No, I thought I'd been smarter than that. I copied several months' worth of
backups onto a dedicated partition,which I then "hid" using "Diskpart Remove
letter=X". But apparently malware has been spotted which can find such
partitions, access them, and encrypt them.

We're doomed, I tell ye...

--

Phil, London

On 11 May 2021 at 16:00:44 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
<thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:

> In article <ifvja5Fdvh8U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
> says...
>>
>> On 11 May 2021 at 10:49:00 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
>> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
>> > good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
>> >> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
>> >> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
>> >> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
>> >>
>> >> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
>> >> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
>> >> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
>> >> details here).
>> >>
>> >> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
>> >> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
>> >> topic.
>> >
>> > I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
>> > identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
>> > encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.
>>
>> If they're shares that are advertised on the network, with no security
>> or you've saved the user/pass into your own account, yep.
>>
>> Cheers - Jaimie
>
> No, I thought I'd been smarter than that. I copied several months' worth of
> backups onto a dedicated partition,which I then "hid" using "Diskpart Remove
> letter=X". But apparently malware has been spotted which can find such
> partitions, access them, and encrypt them.
>
> We're doomed, I tell ye...

Might work if you twiddle the bits of the partition ID so it doesn't
match a FAT/NTFS variant I suppose. But if you're going to the effort of
an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
different building.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean
by infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity."
-- Voltaire

On Tue, 11 May 2021 10:49:00 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:

> In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
> good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
>>
>> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
>> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
>> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
>> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
>>
>> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
>> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access
>> them via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy
>> on the details here).
>>
>> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the
>> risks
>> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about
>> this topic.
>
> I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
> identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to
> them, and encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way,
> um, isn't.

Thanks for providing that observation. I rather thought the 'black hats'
would have evolved their 'ransomware' beyond their initial reliance on NAS
drive volumes needing to be mapped to local drive letters by now.

I switched to Linux about six years ago when a MoBo/CPU upgrade left me
without win2k driver support, forcing me to finally make good on my
promise to ditch Microsoft's proprietary windows OS offerings (win2k
being the last of their best OSes of all time) in favour of a *nix based
one.

I'd stuck with win2k because I'd recognised that horror show known as
winXP, as being the thin end of a wedge of exploitation which has
continued to expand through Vista, shrink slightly with win7, then expand
grossly with win8, ultimately reaching a plateau with that obscenity
known as windows 10.

Linux/BSD has its own shortcomings but at least they're not due to
exploitation of their user base. Unfortunately, in their efforts to
'popularise' the various distros, the later, more 'polished' versions are
making Linux an ever less unattractive target to malware exploitation as
its user base grows.

However, I don't believe the level of take up has reached the stage
whereby the ROI into *nix targeted malware is sufficient to distract the
black hats away from the low hanging fruit that is MS windows. Hopefully,
I'll be dead before any need to bog the PC down with antivirus/antimalware
software of rather questionable value arrives. ;)

--
Johnny B Good

On 11/05/2021 16:51, Johnny B Good wrote:

> However, I don't believe the level of take up has reached the stage
> whereby the ROI into *nix targeted malware is sufficient...

A brief Google suggests that you are wildly optimistic, I'm afraid.

On 11/05/2021 17:41, GB wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 16:51, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
>>   However, I don't believe the level of take up has reached the stage
>> whereby the ROI into *nix targeted malware is sufficient...
>
> A brief Google suggests that you are wildly optimistic, I'm afraid.
>
>

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2020/11/08/new-ransomware-threat-jumps-from-windows-to-linux-what-you-need-to-know/?sh=528f569b3265

On 11/05/2021 16:22, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> But if you're going to the effort of
> an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
> different building.

....which helps protect you from fire, which is probably a much greater
risk to those of us who know something about computers.

Andy
--
FTAOD "us" is probably all the denizens of this group.

On Tue, 11 May 2021 18:00:46 +0100, GB wrote:

> On 11/05/2021 17:41, GB wrote:
>> On 11/05/2021 16:51, Johnny B Good wrote:
>>
>>>   However, I don't believe the level of take up has reached the stage
>>> whereby the ROI into *nix targeted malware is sufficient...
>>
>> A brief Google suggests that you are wildly optimistic, I'm afraid.
>>
>>
>>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2020/11/08/new-ransomware-
threat-jumps-from-windows-to-linux-what-you-need-to-know/?sh=528f569b3265

Thanks for that 'heads up'... I think. :(

That, along with a few other articles I looked at, paints a rather bleak
picture for everyone. It looks Like I should take a closer look at
FreeBSD's latest desktop offerings.

It may not be any more secure but I aught to finally see full Gbe speeds
between my desktop and the "FreeNAS" box using the SMB protocol (unlike
Linux's 67% at best so far to date). Linux in my 10+ years experience,
whether as a server or a client, has always fallen woefully short of
performance in this regard.

I've been meaning to see if a BSD based desktop can match its server
speed performance ever since Linux Mint 17 demonstrated the same woeful
performance all of its predecessors had done when I first installed it
some 6 years ago.

--
Johnny B Good

In article <s7ep42$pul$3@dont-email.me>, vir.campestris@invalid.invalid says...
>
> On 11/05/2021 16:22, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > But if you're going to the effort of
> > an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
> > different building.
>
> ...which helps protect you from fire, which is probably a much greater
> risk to those of us who know something about computers.
>
> Andy

Ah - it only takes a moment's inattention. My (only) recent blooper was when I
was trying out different mobile providers, and I'd registered for service
status updates from EE after signing up for BT Mobile (MVNO over EE). I
received a text message which if I'd looked at it carefully enough should have
raised an eyebrow, but it just felt like it was poorly worded. I clicked the
link... So far all that's happened is that the bi-monthly spam texts have now
become daily. I was lucky.

--

Phil, London

On 11 May 2021 at 22:10:48 BST, "Johnny B Good"
<johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> It may not be any more secure but I aught to finally see full Gbe speeds
> between my desktop and the "FreeNAS" box using the SMB protocol (unlike
> Linux's 67% at best so far to date). Linux in my 10+ years experience,
> whether as a server or a client, has always fallen woefully short of
> performance in this regard.

If it helps, I've had over 900megabytes/sec over 10gigE from my FreeBSD
based NAS to my Mac.

Takes nine hard drives to get that sort of speed though. TrueNAS is the
bistro on the NAS.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you
can't /really/ get a leopard to appreciate the notion that
it has spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard,
but it will just sit there looking at you, knowing that
you are made of meat.
After a while it will perhaps kill you. -- Geoffrey Pullum

On Tue, 11 May 2021 23:40:38 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

> On 11 May 2021 at 22:10:48 BST, "Johnny B Good"
> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> It may not be any more secure but I aught to finally see full Gbe
>> speeds
>> between my desktop and the "FreeNAS" box using the SMB protocol (unlike
>> Linux's 67% at best so far to date). Linux in my 10+ years experience,
>> whether as a server or a client, has always fallen woefully short of
>> performance in this regard.
>
> If it helps, I've had over 900megabytes/sec over 10gigE from my FreeBSD
> based NAS to my Mac.
>
> Takes nine hard drives to get that sort of speed though. TrueNAS is the
> bistro on the NAS.
>
That's quite impressive! I don't think, with a Mac in this mix, you'd
have been using SMB in this case (Appletalk?).

I'd been trying for a few years after upgrading to GBe, to get the over
the wire speed past the 50% mark between my win2k desktop and the FreeNAS
box, trying various PCI GBe adapters to get over the 60MB/s write speed
limit into the NAS (read speeds being around 55MB/s max with GB sized
media files), continuing with the built in GBe LAN ports on the MoBo
upgrades to both desktop and NAS which gave very little improvement (64MB/
s max write speeds istr at this stage).

It wasn't until I took advantage of a customer's reasonably specced win7
desktop machine to run data transfer speed tests with the NAS that I
finally discovered the truth of the matter which turned out to be that
the win2k desktop machine had been the culprit for this latest speed
limitation all along (for GBe performance - it had been fine with fast
ethernet).

Unlike the win2k data transfer progress window, win7's data transfer
progress window reports more than just simply that infamous ETA to
completion ("Only 24 hours...no, wait, 36... er 18 hours from Tulsa") by
inclusion of the moment to moment transfer rate in MB/s which for the
first few seconds until the caches were exhausted, maxed out at circa
125MB/s before dropping back to the slowest of the HDD transfer rates
around the 85 to 90MB/s mark for the remainder of the transfer operation
- some 20GB's worth of multimedia files in all).

That test had been a real eye opener, revealing as it did, the FreeNAS
box's total innocence in this speed throttling issue which I could now
lay the blame squarely on my recently upgraded win2k desktop.

When I was forced to part company with win2k some two or three years
later with a MoBo upgrade lacking any win2k hardware driver support in
favour of Linux Mint, I was rather miffed to see the same piss poor
performance I'd suffered with every other Linux distro I'd ever tried.

In this case the write performance was just marginally better that what
I'd gotten out of win2k on the older hardware so just simply put up with
it since it was at least no worse than it had been before (at least for
writes to the NAS - reads were another thing in being noticeably slower
than before but that was less of an issue in my usage case).

I might have gotten round this speed limitation with SMB transfers by
using NFS but couldn't figure out how to set that up (in reality, ICBA to
delve deeply enough to figure it out). I've simply come to accept this as
a Linux limitation until I finally get round to sorting out a FreeBSD
desktop replacement to properly fix this annoyance once and for all.

I'd had reason to boot the NAS box off a Knoppix 5 Live cd image I'd
mounted onto a bootable 8GB USB pen drive as a temporary work around for
the 1TiB LBA address wrap around bug in FreeNAS's EXT2 driver I'd elected
to use over the, as I later discovered, much faster native UFS file
format. This change to a Linux OS had dropped the 55/60MB/s r/w speeds
down to a mere 25MB/s each way, echoing the behaviour I'd seen with
earlier versions of linux on fast ethernet based LANs where the speed had
been reduced from the win2k to win2k 10MB/s rates to a mere 6.8MB/s for
win2k to Linux based NAS file transfers.

As I've already mentioned, I've been very unimpressed by Linux's poor SMB
file transfer rates, hence my interest in having a go at setting up a
FreeBSD based desktop replacement.

Given my experience over the past two decades to date, I'd recommend
against using any Linux distro to build a NAS box. The use of a FreeBSD
based NAS such as FreeNAS's variously renamed successors such as XigmaNAS
(or whatever it's now called) is imo, far and away, the much better
option.

--
Johnny B Good

On 12 May 2021 at 05:07:22 BST, "Johnny B Good"
<johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2021 23:40:38 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
>> On 11 May 2021 at 22:10:48 BST, "Johnny B Good"
>> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It may not be any more secure but I aught to finally see full Gbe
>>> speeds
>>> between my desktop and the "FreeNAS" box using the SMB protocol (unlike
>>> Linux's 67% at best so far to date). Linux in my 10+ years experience,
>>> whether as a server or a client, has always fallen woefully short of
>>> performance in this regard.
>>
>> If it helps, I've had over 900megabytes/sec over 10gigE from my FreeBSD
>> based NAS to my Mac.
>>
>> Takes nine hard drives to get that sort of speed though. TrueNAS is the
>> bistro on the NAS.
>>
> That's quite impressive! I don't think, with a Mac in this mix, you'd
> have been using SMB in this case (Appletalk?).
>
> I'd been trying for a few years after upgrading to GBe, to get the over
> the wire speed past the 50% mark between my win2k desktop and the FreeNAS
> box, trying various PCI GBe adapters to get over the 60MB/s write speed
> limit into the NAS (read speeds being around 55MB/s max with GB sized
> media files), continuing with the built in GBe LAN ports on the MoBo
> upgrades to both desktop and NAS which gave very little improvement (64MB/
> s max write speeds

FWIW, my up-to-date iMac throws large files about at 100MB/s to a low-end
Synology NAS. Hesitate to say this, but fast enough . . .

--
Cheers, Rob

In article <ifvlq4Fef69U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
says...
>
> On 11 May 2021 at 16:00:44 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <ifvja5Fdvh8U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 11 May 2021 at 10:49:00 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
> >> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
> >> > good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
> >> >> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
> >> >> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
> >> >> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
> >> >>
> >> >> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
> >> >> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
> >> >> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
> >> >> details here).
> >> >>
> >> >> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
> >> >> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
> >> >> topic.
> >> >
> >> > I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
> >> > identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
> >> > encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.
> >>
> >> If they're shares that are advertised on the network, with no security
> >> or you've saved the user/pass into your own account, yep.
> >>
> >> Cheers - Jaimie
> >
> > No, I thought I'd been smarter than that. I copied several months' worth of
> > backups onto a dedicated partition,which I then "hid" using "Diskpart Remove
> > letter=X". But apparently malware has been spotted which can find such
> > partitions, access them, and encrypt them.
> >
> > We're doomed, I tell ye...
>
> Might work if you twiddle the bits of the partition ID so it doesn't
> match a FAT/NTFS variant I suppose. But if you're going to the effort of
> an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
> different building.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie

What had seemed nice about this dodge was that I could do it remotely on a
customer's machine.

--

Phil, London

On 12 May 2021 at 10:50:03 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
<thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:

> In article <ifvlq4Fef69U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
> says...
>>
>> On 11 May 2021 at 16:00:44 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
>> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ifvja5Fdvh8U1@mid.individual.net>, jaimie@usually.sessile.org
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 11 May 2021 at 10:49:00 BST, "Philip Herlihy"
>> >> <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <YYbmI.600187$qNp.118463@fx39.ams4>, johnny-b-
>> >> > good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 10 May 2021 15:30:13 +0100, GB wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Just thinking about ransomware, would a NAS or Linux system used for
>> >> >> > backup be more resilient against ransomware? I assume most ransomware
>> >> >> > runs on PCs, but if the PC can write to the NAS, presumably it can
>> >> >> > overwrite the files on it with an encrypted version?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the NAS disk volumes are mapped to drive letters on the victim PC,
>> >> >> that's true enough otherwise they should be safe if you only access them
>> >> >> via a less 'convenient' mechanism (UNC paths? - I'm a little hazy on the
>> >> >> details here).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You can do a DDG search for more info on the current state of the risks
>> >> >> involved - it's been several years since I last read anything about this
>> >> >> topic.
>> >> >
>> >> > I read a credible recent report saying malware was out there that could
>> >> > identify unmapped partitions containing data, map a drive letter to them, and
>> >> > encrypt them. So in-machine backup data I'd hidden this way, um, isn't.
>> >>
>> >> If they're shares that are advertised on the network, with no security
>> >> or you've saved the user/pass into your own account, yep.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers - Jaimie
>> >
>> > No, I thought I'd been smarter than that. I copied several months' worth of
>> > backups onto a dedicated partition,which I then "hid" using "Diskpart Remove
>> > letter=X". But apparently malware has been spotted which can find such
>> > partitions, access them, and encrypt them.
>> >
>> > We're doomed, I tell ye...
>>
>> Might work if you twiddle the bits of the partition ID so it doesn't
>> match a FAT/NTFS variant I suppose. But if you're going to the effort of
>> an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
>> different building.
>>
>> Cheers - Jaimie
>
> What had seemed nice about this dodge was that I could do it remotely on a
> customer's machine.

I recommend BackBlaze :)

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"If you can't make fun of it, it's probably not worth taking seriously"
-- http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson494.html

On Wed, 12 May 2021 05:22:51 +0000, RJH wrote:

> On 12 May 2021 at 05:07:22 BST, "Johnny B Good"
> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 23:40:38 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2021 at 22:10:48 BST, "Johnny B Good"
>>> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It may not be any more secure but I aught to finally see full Gbe
>>>> speeds
>>>> between my desktop and the "FreeNAS" box using the SMB protocol
>>>> (unlike Linux's 67% at best so far to date). Linux in my 10+ years
>>>> experience, whether as a server or a client, has always fallen
>>>> woefully short of performance in this regard.
>>>
>>> If it helps, I've had over 900megabytes/sec over 10gigE from my
>>> FreeBSD based NAS to my Mac.
>>>
>>> Takes nine hard drives to get that sort of speed though. TrueNAS is
>>> the bistro on the NAS.
>>>
>> That's quite impressive! I don't think, with a Mac in this mix, you'd
>> have been using SMB in this case (Appletalk?).
>>
>> I'd been trying for a few years after upgrading to GBe, to get the
>> over
>> the wire speed past the 50% mark between my win2k desktop and the
>> FreeNAS box, trying various PCI GBe adapters to get over the 60MB/s
>> write speed limit into the NAS (read speeds being around 55MB/s max
>> with GB sized media files), continuing with the built in GBe LAN ports
>> on the MoBo upgrades to both desktop and NAS which gave very little
>> improvement (64MB/
>> s max write speeds
>
> FWIW, my up-to-date iMac throws large files about at 100MB/s to a
> low-end Synology NAS. Hesitate to say this, but fast enough . . .

An echo of the statement, "640K is enough for everyone!" attributed to
Bill Gates eh? :-)

I'm of the same mind - I'll be a happy enough bunny if I can see the
same performance I'd experienced with that win7 desktop over six years
ago when I do eventually get round to testing out a BSD based desktop OS.

Oh, and BTW, I do realise (after hitting "send" of course) that I'd
gotten the capitalisation the wrong way round in "GBe". I rarely need to
use this LAN speed descriptor which, I now seem to recall, should be GbE
(Gbit Ethernet).

--
Johnny B Good

In article <MPG.3b051438860cf52f989937@news.eternal-september.org>,
thiswillbounceback@you.com says...
>

> > >
> > > No, I thought I'd been smarter than that. I copied several months' worth of
> > > backups onto a dedicated partition,which I then "hid" using "Diskpart Remove
> > > letter=X". But apparently malware has been spotted which can find such
> > > partitions, access them, and encrypt them.
> > >
> > > We're doomed, I tell ye...
> >
> > Might work if you twiddle the bits of the partition ID so it doesn't
> > match a FAT/NTFS variant I suppose. But if you're going to the effort of
> > an occasional offline backup, put it on a USB HDD and keep it in a
> > different building.
> >
> > Cheers - Jaimie
>
> What had seemed nice about this dodge was that I could do it remotely on a
> customer's machine.

Spotted the link about this new strain of malware.
https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/359580/new-darkside-ransomware-variant-
targets-disk-partitions

--

Phil, London