From owner-freebsd-security Wed May 3 14: 4: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E2237B565 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 14:04:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA64975; Wed, 3 May 2000 14:04:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:04:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200005032104.OAA64975@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Andrew J. Korty" Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Cryptographic dump(8) References: Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org :That sounds good, but I should probably leave the very first :header as cleartext. That way, I can put a flag there to tell :restore whether or not this tape is encrypted or not. : :> Also, putting a random number in each block is important if each block :> is separately encrypted, for the same reason. : :Would it be acceptable to encrypt the header and block together :but each header/block pair separately? I don't think I have room :to add anything in the block, so maybe I could get that randomness :from what I add to the header (CBC should propagate it a little). : :-- :Andrew J. Korty, Lead Security Engineer :Office of the Vice President for Information Technology :Indiana University Maybe. I don't know. Random is always best but it would probably be acceptable to seed the encryption of later blocks with data from the original header. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message