Re: Ecryptfs vs encfs
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:51:27PM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> Generally, my advice is to use dm-crypt for block devices (like
> encrypting an entire /home partition that root plans to mount at
> bootup), and encfs for encrypting individual directories other than
> $HOME. YMMV.
I've been using the dm-crypt approach for a while, but the limitations of it
have encouraged me to plan a migration to ecryptfs.
* If you mount via root/boot time, you must supply the passphrase at boot,
which stops unattended/automated restarts or boot-ups.
* as a user, you must supply at least two passphrases (dm-crypt, and login).
You can solve the latter by moving to login-time mounting via libpam-mount.
This generally works very well, but
* fsck is totally invisible if you log in via an X display manager, so the
occasional login will take 5-10 minutes longer than expected for a large
* mounting is done serially, so if you have more than one encrypted
filesystem (I have nearly a dozen, which is a mistake) login takes a long
time very time
With ecryptfs, I can have a file-level backup solution work on the backing
files, not require an active login or mounted FS, and do replication to other
nodes/sites without privacy concerns.