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