***Ready Boost Gotcha***

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard Urban
  • Start date Start date
If it's stolen and used in a different Vista install, it is erased and a
new one is made.

If it's in the same Vista install, then it stays.
 
I guess I never thought about WHAT information would be retained on the USB
stick. If there's a chance that personal information can be retained on the
stick then I'm glad the data get's wiped when an attempt to use the stick
outside it's last Vista boot is attempted.

That's exactly how it should be.

Thanks for that information Dustin!
 
bp said:
Does it seem like there are some that are just looking for any excuse
to jump up and down a start screaming that MS/VISTA sucks?
Click to expand...

Now what gave you that impression??? :)
 
I guess I never thought about WHAT information would be retained on the USB
stick. If there's a chance that personal information can be retained on the
stick then I'm glad the data get's wiped when an attempt to use the stick
outside it's last Vista boot is attempted.

That's exactly how it should be.

Thanks for that information Dustin!
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's actually wiped or just deleted? It is quite possible to
recover data from USB drives if it's only been deleted.
 
Nevermind I stand corrected, you really do have a reading comprehension
problem.

I guess not everyone can score a perfect 800 SAT verbal like I can.

Idiot.
 
In message <ey$vTahSHHA.4188@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Dustin Harper
Chris Avis actually brought this up at the Vista Launch in Portland. It
is due to a security issue. If you have your memory stick and it gets
stolen, someone can't get into it and get information from the page file.

It would be erased even on another Vista installation. Therefore, it is
doing what it was made to do, and not a bug.
Click to expand...

I'm confused -- Relying on some other OS to hopefully remember to delete
a file is a "Security" issue?

It most definitely is not. Even the most amateur security expert can
explain why this offers virtually no security -- Anyone capable of
cracking the encryption on the file will definitely not be stupid enough
to stick the USB drive into an operating system which will corrupt the
file before you start.

At best, it's a convenience in that it frees up the space -- However, it
should, at a minimum, be optional, since it partially negates the
performance boost.
 
From a buddy:

"I just tried it here and the file is on the USB drive as
"ReadyBoost.sfcache" and just sits there (this is on my xp machine)."

It doesn't get removed from his XP machine.
 
Dustin Harper said:
Chris Avis actually brought this up at the Vista Launch in Portland.
It is due to a security issue. If you have your memory stick and it
gets stolen, someone can't get into it and get information from the
page file.
Click to expand...

[...]

Hm. Do you seriously mean someone can get information from AES-128
encrypted file?
Interesting...
 
In message <uj3CpKqSHHA.920@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl> "Michal Kawecki"
Dustin Harper said:
Chris Avis actually brought this up at the Vista Launch in Portland.
It is due to a security issue. If you have your memory stick and it
gets stolen, someone can't get into it and get information from the
page file.
Click to expand...

[...]

Hm. Do you seriously mean someone can get information from AES-128
encrypted file?
Interesting...
Click to expand...

Yes. Every single ReadyBoost user can and does every time Windows uses
the ReadyBoost cache.

Someone unauthorized would be tougher... However, regardless of the
strength of the encryption, there may still be implementation bugs.

Regardless, relying on the user to stick the stolen ReadyBoost cache
into a XP SP2 machine to delete the file, and hoping they don't use
another OS isn't a security feature, it's stupid.

I suspect that the goal was simply to free up the space, for those that
don't understand why most of their memory stick is suddenly unavailable.
 
what makes you think it was a "mistake"?
MS knew what they were doing...
MS has for years, since Win95 at least, decided that the PC you're using
belongs to them, not you.

Just like all the hardware vendors who take products that are STILL on store
shelves,
call them "Legacy" now that Vista is out, then refuse to update their
drivers for new products.

They want to force you into buying a new one - no other reason. They could
issue updated drivers,
if they WANTED to, they just choose not to.
 
I can see your point, to a certain extent. Although I think that they
should have longer support times, I also think that they should put that
money from development of older drivers into newer technology. Most
hardware companies cannot afford to keep a driver staff on the payroll
for older OS's.

The major hardware advances have been done by putting more money into
R&D of new products and drivers, rather than keeping the old ones up to
date dragging along.

But, I do think that with the newer products (yes, the ones still on the
shelf) do need to be supported by updated drivers. They should support
them for a certain lifespan (longer than 6 months or for a new OS).

But, as usual, if they do not support your products, show them that you
won't support them with your cash. Buy something else.
 
Back
Top