From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 22 12:33:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB216A4CE for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:33:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from male.aldigital.co.uk (male.aldigital.co.uk [213.129.64.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1996F43D31 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:33:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from adam.laurie@thebunker.net) Received: from [192.168.111.69] (host217-35-79-251.in-addr.btopenworld.com [217.35.79.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by male.aldigital.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9740C97748; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:33:07 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4178FE02.9040103@thebunker.net> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:33:06 +0100 From: Adam Laurie User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040916) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yan Wang References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:33:59 +0000 cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org cc: richard childers / kg6hac Subject: Re: transparent cfs (tcfs) X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:33:10 -0000 Yan Wang wrote: > Richard, > > Thank you for your information. > > I got the response of TCFS authors, a group at University of Salerno, Italy, > saying they have stopped the project. My impression is that it is pretty > tough to port from OpenBSD to FreeBSD. The kernel part is very different. > No wonder tcfs is not available at FreeBSD.org. > > Interestingly, I also got a response from OpenBSD community. They also > stopped the project to include tcfs into OpenBSD, because the software > license problem. tcfs was not intended to be free. > > As far as I know, AT&T's CFS is based on the work of Matt Blaze. What I > heard is that it is implemented at the user space, only supporting > directory encryption not file-level. Richard, is this true? I might > reconsider using CFS. CFS maps an encrypted directory tree, so everything in it including files and sub-directories gets encrypted. i've been using it, without problems, for several years, and would have no hesitation in recommending it. cheers, Adam -- Adam Laurie Tel: +44 (20) 7605 7000 The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd. Fax: +44 (20) 7605 7099 Shepherds Building http://www.thebunker.net Rockley Road London W14 0DA mailto:adam@thebunker.net UNITED KINGDOM PGP key on keyservers