Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:43:10 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> Cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE Message-ID: <10983.1109882590@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:37:24 EST." <Pine.NEB.4.62.0503031436160.12890@server.duh.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.4.62.0503031436160.12890@server.duh.org>, Todd Vierling writes: >On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> At the time where I wrote GBDE, the best that was offered was CGD (and >> similar) and users (not cryptographers!) didn't trust it > >Could you back up this claim, insofar that "users" did not trust cgd? I >haven't seen any distrust of cgd -- in fact, I've seen quite a bit of >welcome acceptace of cgd by both users *and* cryptographers. Some of the people I talked to were very unhappy about the same key being used for all sectors on the disk. Even a small weakness in the cipher becomes a big hole because of the amount of data this offers for analysis. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10983.1109882590>