From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 14 02:21:17 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 523F0933; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF840FC3; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id pn19so5821571lab.9; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:21:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:reply-to:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=80SjMj+qafb2xMO6td5tScnjSBfmsPI0+U5SLnp1u80=; b=YbMtrc+pjYDp7M9LS6XUTFp6M9/RUiFsO4utI1t32qZSbVM2orvXRVzoS1/N8SNfFH ovYKfishFc680LsBXY8mA4TUPhfykQjVzyp/cK+kQ8+bc/LkOshHJeb+HAn+kSQOEaDM 6zV90X8RoibMpV31qgd55pUVKulxNy9iBkFpMJI0U4ro+vmO1wxTJqWjPch/lxMnxpGZ eXLfx3DVmckrV8whsci85Du+fvQTvl8KcrblVbqYkGxy5BqAUJRTpnIW7C3LFWoS8AHn gJyWEddASZGBuPipImZcmePaOY2kJ7ZlPcAma/lnf+oIOXeJXkDLpWUxIFnKH7vFwkdo /xXw== X-Received: by 10.152.5.132 with SMTP id s4mr1333650las.39.1421202074856; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rimwks1w7x64 ([2001:470:1f15:8e:b007:2759:7397:9491]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm1324777lae.0.2015.01.13.18.21.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:21:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54b5d299.4914980a.61cd.43a6@mx.google.com> X-Google-Original-Message-ID: <027201d02fa0$c49b9db0$4dd2d910$@IM@gmail.com> From: rozhuk.im@gmail.com X-Google-Original-From: Reply-To: To: "'Adam Nowacki'" , , References: <54b33bfa.e31b980a.3e5d.ffffc823@mx.google.com> <54B4AE55.9090205@platinum.linux.pl> In-Reply-To: <54B4AE55.9090205@platinum.linux.pl> Subject: RE: ChaCha8/12/20 and GEOM ELI tests Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 05:21:10 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdAu85//yn4xS/63R0GS0vN078AwhQAqcwFg Content-Language: ru X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:21:17 -0000 > Maybe faster but a stream cipher is unusable for disk encryption - iv > is derived from sector number and doesn't change. Being able to write = a > known plaintext and read resulting ciphertext allows you to recover = the > cipher stream and decrypt any past or future data stored on that > sector. Depends on the capabilities of the attacker. To be able to continuously read encrypted sectors for data collection is = too much. Ability to read encrypted sectors has a transmission network, for = example when the container=3Ddisk is stored somewhere in the cloud. In many cases, the attacker gets Encrypted disk along with other = equipment, often in the off state. Without encryption keys and the ability to write / read through the = GELI. I do not see any weaknesses stream ciphers in cases when the attacker is = not able to access the disk when it is mounted in the GEOM GELI. Another possibility is the use of ChaCha (without XTS) - encryption swap = file: there every time a new key is generated, besides the speed is = particularly important. These aspects of the application must necessarily be reflected in the = documentation. There are objections to add ChaCha and XChaCha (without XTS) in GEOM = GELI?