secure disk image, big minimum volume size

I'd like to make a secure disk image that I can keep passwords in. Disk Utility does that nicely, BUT the minimum volume size is 10.5MB. Why is that? I want to keep a few hundred K of material secure, and I need to allocate 10.5MB to do it??? Not a big deal, I guess, but it seems kinda silly.

Is there a way to make a smaller secure volume?

10.5 MB is trivial in size and yeah, shouldn't be a big deal. But what I'm wondering is why you don't just use a password manager, like 1Password? It encrypts the password database so it's no less secure than what you are doing and has a lot of utility to it.

Lifeisabeach said:

10.5 MB is trivial in size and yeah, shouldn't be a big deal. But what I'm wondering is why you don't just use a password manager, like 1Password? It encrypts the password database so it's no less secure than what you are doing and has a lot of utility to it.

Click to expand...

Also syncs cross-platforms. Very handy actually.. Oh and I'd do that.. and encrypt the entire drive while I was at it. Oh yea, actually I did

1password sounds nice, but fifty bucks? Really? Geez. I don't need the extra utility for $50, I'd just like a secure compact place. A protected disk image is free, wonderfully secure, just not all that compact.

I suppose I could save them in a protected Word document, but it's handy being able to make secure a whole package of files

Again, why won't Mac let me create a smaller disk image? I just don't see what the need is for a minimum size. When I make a folder, I'm not required to make one that is 10.5MB.

Doug Lassiter said:

Again, why won't Mac let me create a smaller disk image? I just don't see what the need is for a minimum size. When I make a folder, I'm not required to make one that is 10.5MB.

Click to expand...

Consequence of the formatting scheme that is used in the format? *shrug* Don't know, and quite honestly don't care. Knowing isn't going to change anything, will it?

Ok ok.... I got curious and experimented with the options. The formatting scheme is EXACTLY why this is. If you change from "Mac OS Extended" to "MS-DOS (FAT)", then you can make one that's 2.5 MB in size. I wouldn't recommend it though... FAT isn't a very robust file system and is far more prone to corruption than Mac OS Extended is (or NTFS, for that matter). Bear in mind that you aren't simply creating an archive file... you are creating a virtual disk image that is treated as if it was a physical drive, and the formatting scheme of choice does have minimum size requirements of the drive/partition to be usable. If you had a 5 MB thumb drive (if such a thing existed), formatting it in Mac OS Extended would be impossible. There is a minimum amount of space for the file system to contain the directory and other hidden data inherent in a file system. FAT needs less space because it's also much less complex (and less robust as a consequence).

Lifeisabeach said:

Consequence of the formatting scheme that is used in the format? *shrug* Don't know, and quite honestly don't care. Knowing isn't going to change anything, will it

Click to expand...

And apparently asking here won't either.

Doug Lassiter said:

And apparently asking here won't either.

Click to expand...

Although, he did give you the answer.

There really isn't a need to create such a thing either. You already have an app that will securely store your passwords and that no one can access without the password in Keychain Access - in the Applications/Utilities folder. You can create new notes, logins, store software registration keys, etc. there. Used it myself for about 3-4 years until the price of a good password manager became worth it to me.

Just curious here as to what OS X version is involved to only get a 10.5 MB image?? ;D

My Mavericks Disk Utility says I can create one as large as 500MB. That should be large enough I'd think for the OP's project.

Apple seems to agree:
How to create a password-protected (encrypted) disk image - Apple Support

Op is talking about the minimum size permitted.

bobtomay said:

Op is talking about the minimum size permitted.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess I misread it and 10.5MB wasn't large enough. ;D

For the small amount required, Keychain Access as mentioned and well suggested and I'd agree would be more than adequate.