From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 16 17:36:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1536716A4CE for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:36:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBA343D2F for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:36:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from bsdbox.farid-hajji.net (bsdbox [192.168.254.3]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AA54B932; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:36:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:36:57 +0100 From: cpghost@cordula.ws To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050116173657.GA68560@bsdbox.farid-hajji.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Steganographic FS for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:36:03 -0000 Hello, is there some equivalent to StegFS [1] on FreeBSD; preferably in combination with GBDE? Yes, I'm aware of the problem with StegFS cited in paragraph 4.1 of [2] by Poul-Henning Kamp: "If we include the attacker in the analysis, she will soon know that the facility used is STEGFS, and consequently that multiple levels of keys are not only a possibility but to be expected." However, having StegFS as an optional part of GBDE would be a good idea anyway. If everyone has a StegFS-capable GBDE by default in the OS, wouldn't that help increase the deniability of it being *used* in the first place? 1: http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/StegFS/ 2: http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/bsdcon-03.gbde.paper.pdf Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/