• flying_monkies@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of SSD already has good encryption methods

        Unless you purchase a SED-non FIPS or FIPS SSD, no, they don’t

        and an easy way to safely wipe data without re-writing each byte.

        ATA Secure Erase is a god send for SSD.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Btw, hw-based encryption is always a compromise betwen security, speed and cost. And holes in the blackbox firmware can only be fixed with updates, as long as supported and if the vendor is willing to.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re routinely reading and writing multi gig files in daily life? O.o Do you work with video editing or something?

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would see myself saying that not long ago, but now a 50GB game is nothing unusual.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, but you’re limited in many, many ways before the SSD. Downloading the game? Network bottleneck. Playing the game? GPU/CPU bottleneck. (Not to mention, if a game is attempting to access multiple gigs of stored data every second, there’s likely something wrong with that game.)

            Installing the game, absolutely. But you only do that once, and I doubt you’re installing a 500GB game daily.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            … Then you would disable auto adoption of newly connected drives into bitlocker, would you not?

            This is like complaining that the login screen pops up every time for a machine that doesn’t need security. Just change the setting instead of complaining about a niche use case.

            The majority of users won’t notice a slowdown of even 50% on an SSD. It won’t effect game performance, your network will bottleneck before your SSD in any internet download, most users don’t interact with extremely large sets of data which is needed asap on the regular.

            You’re essentially only going to have a problem, in daily use for the average user, in (un)packing large sets of data, or moving large sets of data between drives. Things most people don’t do regularly.

            So a slight alteration to my question, how exactly does this negatively affect most users in daily usage.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but 20-40% slower? That points to something being poorly optimised.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, that’s what happens when there’s no hardware acceleration and it fails back to software.

        • nybble41@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They should still be using the CPU’s built-in AES hardware acceleration, yes? It seems they have good reason not to trust the SSD to handle the encryption but that doesn’t mean it has to be entirely implemented in software. CPU-accelerated AES shouldn’t be that much slower.