From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Oct 5 15:40:10 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3BE427D19 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:40:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@metricspace.net) Received: from mail.metricspace.net (static-108-31-38-18.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.31.38.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4lCs4QgJz4348; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:40:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@metricspace.net) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:617:3210:b3ff:fe77:becd] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:617:3210:b3ff:fe77:becd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: eric) by mail.metricspace.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CDF015484; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Mounting encrypted ZFS datasets/GELI for users? To: Alan Somers Cc: FreeBSD Hackers References: <8d467e98-237f-c6a2-72de-94c0195ec964@metricspace.net> From: Eric McCorkle Autocrypt: addr=eric@metricspace.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXonLJBYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA4oHU11A8qtqD0EtRofyORHbGX1ZIT/mnk9eceKQx56q0 JEVyaWMgTWNDb3JrbGUgPGVyaWNAbWV0cmljc3BhY2UubmV0PoiZBBMWCABBAhsDBQsJCAcC BhUKCQgLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEPfuJobsx0Me4pIwLPOOjZtwQVqwFAl6J2DIFCQHh QI4ACgkQPOOjZtwQVqzGAAEAu2D57t8P5L7aE1zQKLrJ4B56ki67sR+N/W1mvKnw26oBANEp vVLbA7zr9q7i9wT/xrAUEnc4jylTEKM4sm60q8gBuDgEXonLJBIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQCxw rRXlvDoXgDGv2WMrLy9UaJ4fNWXIdlaiiKZIH7lBAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmAhsMFiEEPfuJobsx 0Me4pIwLPOOjZtwQVqwFAl6J2DoFCQHhQJYACgkQPOOjZtwQVqy4UwEAruwUbIQEmOGkyGmA 8Q7A/LGqCYE7vBzF1OnpcOuV1vYBANIVrBc7ikG6UelcNkUD1o3QCsp9y5U0/KS6Uc1LQ40E Message-ID: <630f9133-4f67-92bd-41f9-fb04d985c159@metricspace.net> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:39:53 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JIE9tOMMIY2I4L9QZydIV914Rt1cKjLGF" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4C4lCs4QgJz4348 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eric@metricspace.net has no SPF policy when checking 108.31.38.18) smtp.mailfrom=eric@metricspace.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.72 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[eric]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; HAS_ATTACHMENT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[multipart/signed,multipart/mixed,text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[metricspace.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.57)[0.574]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.87)[-0.868]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.33)[-0.329]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; SIGNED_PGP(-2.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:+,3:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:701, ipnet:108.31.0.0/16, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-hackers]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 15:40:10 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --JIE9tOMMIY2I4L9QZydIV914Rt1cKjLGF Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AFKY7f1UhzhyX5jcwKO4MDJd8xD39Xhsc" --AFKY7f1UhzhyX5jcwKO4MDJd8xD39Xhsc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/5/20 11:12 AM, Alan Somers wrote: > First of all, what kind of thread are you concerned with?=C2=A0 Disk > encryption does not protect against an attacker with access to a live > machine; it only protects against an attacker with access to an off > machine, or to the bare HDDs.=C2=A0 Per-user encryption would presumabl= y > protect one user from another user who has physical access to the off > server.=C2=A0 Is that what you're worried about?=C2=A0 If not, then you= shouldn't > bother with per-user encryption.=C2=A0 Just encrypt all of /home or all= of > the pool with a single key. >=20 > -Alan I am evaluating options for domains where use of per-user encryption is mandated, often as a means of protecting against insider threats. --AFKY7f1UhzhyX5jcwKO4MDJd8xD39Xhsc-- --JIE9tOMMIY2I4L9QZydIV914Rt1cKjLGF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQ9+4mhuzHQx7ikjAs846Nm3BBWrAUCX3s+SQAKCRA846Nm3BBW rD1ZAP0cyNlO1ThkquVputKoaz57If/nxQUSeVBManOYOFgrkwEAxFA27duQuNjU XEh7WZMbXR7QssgK/OR1uJAGdh7I8A0= =rncG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JIE9tOMMIY2I4L9QZydIV914Rt1cKjLGF--