also sprach Michael Buchholz <michael@bubi.dnsalias.net> [2005.06.17.0857 +0200]: > If it would be that way, it would allways be necessary to decrypt > the whole filesystem, when you want to read the last block. Or you > have to store a decrypted version in memory... No, it would not. You only need access to the immediately preceeding block, since its *cipherdata* are used to encrypt the current block. > And also, when you write any block, you have to reencrypt all the > remaining blocks. Yes, don't you? > I don't know, what kind of CPU you use, but on my system, that > would be really time consuming!!! Just one of those 100 GHz low-end consumer products with 128 cores. And you? :) > The loss of a single block on a harddist "should" be protected by > using some kind of "forward error correction" like the > Solomon-Reed one. But *is* it? Before I put my data into a cipher file, I sure as hell want to know... What I find a bit peculiar: I have made an 8Mb test file in fs.img, and I overwrite a small part of it: (dd if=fs.img bs=1 count=10000; dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=8; dd if=fs.img bs=1 skip=10008) >| fs2.img When I mount fs2.img, I get no error... what gives? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! #include <signature.h>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature