Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 May 1999 09:31:43 -0400
From:      Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc:        Adam Shostack <adam@breakwater.homeport.org>, nr1@ihug.co.nz, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: secure backup
Message-ID:  <19990517093143.B2322@weathership.homeport.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9905171213420.28148-100000@bragg>; from Kris Kennaway on Mon, May 17, 1999 at 12:45:09PM %2B0930
References:  <19990516223322.B1851@weathership.homeport.org> <Pine.OSF.4.10.9905171213420.28148-100000@bragg>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 12:45:09PM +0930, Kris Kennaway wrote:
| On Sun, 16 May 1999, Adam Shostack wrote:
| 
| > You're worried about errors on the tape, I presume?  You could
| > pipe the output of pgp through something that does redundant encoding, 
| > such that errors on the tape are recoverable outside the tape.  There
| > are some direct tradeoffs that you can find between bloat and
| > recoverability; as you add bits, your odds of being able to
| > reconstruct increase.
| 
| Pipe the output of dump or tar or whatever you're using through bdes(1). You
| don't need the overhead of PGP unless you want a trusted third party to read
| the backup without knowing the encryption key. Pass the data through three
| rounds of bdes doing an encrypt, decrypt, followed by encrypt (with different
| keys, of course) and you've got yourself 3DES, which bdes doesn't seem to do
| natively. Make the keys random, and stick those in a PGP file if you like.
| 
| Hmm, there seems to be a void of any general-purpose tools which provide
| error-correcting data encoding - but in this case do you really need it?
| It'll only multiply the size of your backup, and if you're using a reliable
| transport protocol between client and server (i.e. TCP) then this shouldn't be
| an issue. If your tape is dropping bits, then it would be a big problem if you
| were using it in the normal way (attached to local computer). I suppose the
| untrusted server could cause your data stream to be corrupted, but they could
| also cause it to never make the tape in the first place.

If the tape is unreliable, and you lose a few bits of a plaintext
file, you've lost a few bits.  If its a few bits of an encrypted and
compressed file, you may lose the whole file.


| ther server and modify it to nullify ANY authentication measures (easy if this
| is a shell script) - so you can't really be sure that no-one else is writing
| data onto the tape, only that the data you do write which ends up on the tape
| is secure from decryption.

No, if you use pgp, you can sign the data on your local (trusted)
machine, and only be vulnerable to a DOS attack, not authentication
attacks.

| In summary, there's only so much you can do if you don't trust the server -
| you still have to trust them to provide basic functions like actually writing
| your data to the tape.

This is correct.

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990517093143.B2322>