[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-crypto
Subject:    Re: Announce loop-AES-v1.3b file crypto package
From:       "peter k." <spam-goes-to-dev-null () gmx ! net>
Date:       2001-07-11 23:01:52
[Download RAW message or body]

> It really made no sense to me to here you say that having as many bits as
> you want is not a safe thing to do as juxtaposed against a backdrop of
> security for purposes of a threat of law enforcement investigation,
> intrusive subpoena or just playing with crypto. I presume you meant that
> there must be a minimum number of bits to have. I personally am not
breaking
> the law, nor am I worried about being served with any intrusive subpoena,
> but I do believe in having a level of encryption able to be stronger than
> what would be subvertable by average law enforcement only as a bar to
> measure up against how strong my encryption methodology and implementation
> is.
>
> Are you saying that the implementations of crypto this group is using are
> not strong enough to subvert even law enforcement? I would tend to
disagree
> with that, since the NSA is using AES! I think you had better think again
> about what you just said, I doubt anyone will take those words too
> seriously.
>
> I think that without having to learn a great deal about the rules of
> entropy weighting, and such, a nice thing to do would be to determine (I
> think Peter will wonder about this too), what would provide a strong and
> usable encryption standard for appliance operator users? I am not so into
> crypto that I care to learn all about entropy and such, I am interested in
> learning some basic rules, which I can apply to using these technologies.

yep, i want the best possible encryption, i won't use anything which says
"this can't be decrypted by normal people but the government is able to"
if there is someone / some computer (ASCI White for example) who / which
can decrypt a certain crypto (in a sufficient amount of time of course),
using it
is pointless!

> a) What encryption standard is strongest, and can be used to not slow my
> work down to such a point that I start to dislike using the encryption at
> all? I will presume that AES falls into this category

it would be also interesting to know the differences between AES, AES128
AES256, etc
and it would be a good idea to include some kind of list [in our future
fixed I-patch]
with all ciphers compared on, for example, how long it will take to decrypt
them with ASCI White, how fast they are, etc

> b) What rules ought we follow to generate a useful pass phrase, which will
> keep us secure? I do not intend to write it down, I will learn it, no
matter
> how difficult, because it is important to me, and I will make a task of
> memorizing the phrase, period.
and of course there should be some application which follows these rules and
generates passwords for the user ;)

> I can understand the frustration Peter is experiencing, as this group
spends
> so much time on the most intricate details of every topic. After hearing
of
> all these bugs, problems, debates, and such, I am beginning to think it is
> unlikely I can really implement a useful encryption standard under Linux,
> and am resigned to using what W2K has built in. But, all I know is I am
> scared to use the I-patch cause it seems to have bugs I don't understand
> clearly (the "IV" bug), Crypto API is perhaps in a development stage right
> now, and so may or may not be debugged at this point (hmm, do we trust our
> valuable data to such software?) and the loop-aes driver (if we use it), I
> am not sure how to choose a pass phrase which will render it protective,
and
> not hackable cause I used a bad pass phrase, that is where I am.

as im assuming that some of the major targets of linux developers are
creating something
much better than windows and competing against microsoft i already was about
to write in
one of my previous mails that you guys (jari for example) should focus on
creating *one*
working and easy to configure crypto package instead of creating 1000
different ones which
are "outside of the kernel" and quarreling about whose crypto package is the
best!
if there is no good crypto support available in the kernel people will just
use the crypto features
winXP will have built in! (me for example, i have one box whose hd is almost
completely
dedicated to crypto so it'll be easy for me to move to winXP!)



Linux-crypto:  cryptography in and on the Linux system
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]