also sprach Rolf Kutz <rk@vzsze.de> [2011.09.12.0941 +0200]: > There might be different use cases. An encrypted /home can still > be backuped easily by administrators without being able to see > inside. True. At the same time, it exposes quite a lot of information, e.g. structure of the tree. I don't know how much of that could be used in a plain-text attack. Note, however, that I don't really know ecryptfs. I only briefly looked at encfs and was horrified by some of its design choices. Maybe ecryptfs is better. Meanwhile, however, I chose to stay with dm-crypt, which simply seems saner. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems people with narrow minds usually have broad tongues.
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)