From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 16:37:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5FE16A4CE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:37:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA343D55 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:37:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tls@rek.tjls.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D829E981BE; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from tls@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p3/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id j23GbVH13212; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:37:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:37:31 -0500 From: Thor Lancelot Simon To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20050303163731.GA8001@panix.com> References: <200503021910.j22JAGCH081224@marlena.vvi.at> <8706.1109867494@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8706.1109867494@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:36:07 +0000 cc: tech-security@netbsd.org cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:37:33 -0000 On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:31:34PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200503021910.j22JAGCH081224@marlena.vvi.at>, "ALeine" writes: > > >Not necessarily, if one were to implement the ideas I proposed > >I believe the performance could be kept at the same level as now. > > I gave up on journalling myself because IMO it complicates > things a lot and the problem it solves is very very small. > > The impact in disk seeks is non-trivial to predict, but it is > very hard to argue that it will not lead to an increase in > disk seeks. (This is really a variant of the age old argument > between jounaling filesystems and "traditional" filesystems) > > I can only recommend that you try :-) > > We need more ideas and more people trying out ideas. I could not disagree more. When it comes to nonstandard homebrewed cryptosystems foisted off on unsuspecting users with a bundle of claims of algorithm strength that they're not competent to evaluate for themselves, we do not need more ideas, nor more people trying out ideas; we need less. Standard, widely analyzed cryptographic algorithms are good. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky