Hi

Hi

[Rajaram Suresh Gaunker]

Hi

I want to make a copy of ext2 file system to exist with a 
different name of my choice.

Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system.
for this purpose i want to do that,

i've copied the ext2 file system code, and changed its name in 
init function but when i try to mount some fs with the new name it 
is saying that it is not supporting,

wher is the VFS file system code exist.

bye
Rajaram



R@j@r@m

Re: Hi

[Erik Mouw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 933 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:04:57PM -0000, Rajaram Suresh Gaunker wrote:
> I want to make a copy of ext2 file system to exist with a 
> different name of my choice.
> 
> Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system.
> for this purpose i want to do that,

I already explained you that for security reasons this functionality
should be in the block layer, not in the filesystem layer.

> i've copied the ext2 file system code, and changed its name in 
> init function but when i try to mount some fs with the new name it 
> is saying that it is not supporting,
> 
> wher is the VFS file system code exist.

Seth Arnold already told you to look in fs/* .

Why don't you actually do something with the replies people already
gave you? You just annoy people when you ask the same question over and
over again.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw
Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl  mouw@nl.linux.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Hi

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 16:34, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system.
> > for this purpose i want to do that,
> 
> I already explained you that for security reasons this functionality
> should be in the block layer, not in the filesystem layer.

Why?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Hi

[Juan Quintela]

>>>>> "david" == David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:

david> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 16:34, Erik Mouw wrote:
>> > Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system.
>> > for this purpose i want to do that,
>> 
>> I already explained you that for security reasons this functionality
>> should be in the block layer, not in the filesystem layer.

david> Why?

If you do it at the filesystem layer you:
a- leave the filesystem structure (i.e. names) unencrypted
b- you just don't care if you are not able to recover things at fsck
   time :(
c- you are really clever and finds a way to encrypt all the filesystem
   and recovering from a crash

Apart from that, doing it at the block layer should be much, much
easier :)

Later, Juan.
-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

Re: Hi

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 14:54, Juan Quintela wrote (re encryption):
> If you do it at the filesystem layer you:
> a- leave the filesystem structure (i.e. names) unencrypted

Why would you want to do that? It's not really an invariant property of
encryption-capable file systems, surely? You can crypt the names if you
want to.

> b- you just don't care if you are not able to recover things at fsck
>    time :(

Likewise. It might be decreed that file sizes and directory tree
structure are an acceptable leak of information and hence you can have a
fsck which just doesn't grok either filenames, permissions or data -- or
you might decide that's not an acceptable leak, and require the key in
order to fsck it. You need the key in order to fsck a file system on an
encrypted block device _anyway_, right?

> c- you are really clever and finds a way to encrypt all the filesystem
>    and recovering from a crash

Parse error.

> Apart from that, doing it at the block layer should be much, much
> easier :)

Filesystems are hard. Let's go shopping :)

Doing redundancy at the block layer is much much easier too. That
doesn't necessarily make it not suck when a raid rebuild is pointlessly
copying blocks which aren't actually _referenced_ by the file system,
because it doesn't have the knowledge about the layout that the file
system does.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Hi

[Juan Quintela]

>>>>> "david" == David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:

david> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 14:54, Juan Quintela wrote (re encryption):
>> If you do it at the filesystem layer you:
>> a- leave the filesystem structure (i.e. names) unencrypted

david> Why would you want to do that? It's not really an invariant property of
david> encryption-capable file systems, surely? You can crypt the names if you
david> want to.

Some paranoid security person, don't want an attacker to know what
file to atack :p

I.e. that the attacker is able to read a name like:

here_is_where_we_store_security_passworkds.txt

And they have the same problem for only giving them the filesystem
structure :(

>> b- you just don't care if you are not able to recover things at fsck
>> time :(

david> Likewise. It might be decreed that file sizes and directory tree
david> structure are an acceptable leak of information and hence you can have a
david> fsck which just doesn't grok either filenames, permissions or data -- or
david> you might decide that's not an acceptable leak, and require the key in
david> order to fsck it. You need the key in order to fsck a file system on an
david> encrypted block device _anyway_, right?

Yep, problem is that you have a corrupted filesystem, you know the
key, but you don't know what kind of information has this block.  If
the block is encrypted, bets are basically off :( you can't apply
easily heuristics :(  Was that blocked ever used, and then its value
is encrypted/have nothing interesting?

>> c- you are really clever and finds a way to encrypt all the filesystem
>> and recovering from a crash

david> Parse error.

>> Apart from that, doing it at the block layer should be much, much
>> easier :)

david> Filesystems are hard. Let's go shopping :)

david> Doing redundancy at the block layer is much much easier too. That
david> doesn't necessarily make it not suck when a raid rebuild is pointlessly
david> copying blocks which aren't actually _referenced_ by the file system,
david> because it doesn't have the knowledge about the layout that the file
david> system does.

I think that the only reason why encryption at the filesystem level
makes sense is when you want to only encrypt _some_ files, but at that
point, you can also encrypt by hand them with some script/similar :(

About that things are easier at the filesystem level than at the block
device, yes, they exist, another example is snapshots.  Snapshots at
the block level are easy to do, they just use a lot of disk space.  At
the filesystem level, they are more eficient (duplicated info is
minimal), but you need to be very, very careful to implement them at
the filesystem level.  At the block level it is _almost_ trivial (at
least when you compare it with an implementation at the filesystem
level).

It just happens that from my point of view, encryption is a lot
easier and more secure done at the Block layer level.

Later, Juan.

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

Re: Hi

[Erik Mouw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 465 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 04:37:13PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I think that the only reason why encryption at the filesystem level
> makes sense is when you want to only encrypt _some_ files, but at that
> point, you can also encrypt by hand them with some script/similar :(

Or do something like libz: on the fly or even transparent
encryption/decryption of files.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw
Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl  mouw@nl.linux.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Hi

[Juan Quintela]

>>>>> "erik" == Erik Mouw <J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl> writes:

erik> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 04:37:13PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> I think that the only reason why encryption at the filesystem level
>> makes sense is when you want to only encrypt _some_ files, but at that
>> point, you can also encrypt by hand them with some script/similar :(

erik> Or do something like libz: on the fly or even transparent
erik> encryption/decryption of files.

I meaned basically to do it out of kernel land, that solution also
works for me :)

Later, Juan.

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

Re: Hi

[Erik Mouw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2029 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:07:29PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 16:34, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > > Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system.
> > > for this purpose i want to do that,
> > 
> > I already explained you that for security reasons this functionality
> > should be in the block layer, not in the filesystem layer.
> 
> Why?

File level encryption gives an attacker information about the files on
your system.

Suppose I can get hold of your disk and I want to know if you are
subscribed to linux-kernel. I just mount the disk, and if I find a file
called "dwmw2/Mail/linux-kernel", it gives me a large hint you are
indeed subscribed. No, I can't decrypt the file, but that wasn't my
purpose. I do however know the file metadata, like the filename, the
owner, modification time, length, etc.

So I know you are subscribed to linux-kernel. I can't read the file,
but that's not necessary because I can also get the plain text of the
linux-kernel mailing list, which is enough to do a known plaintext
attack on your cipher. How hard that is depends of course on the cipher
and your key, but given enough computerpower it is possible to crack
your key.

The way to solve this is to encrypt at the block level. In that way I
can't even mount the filesystem when I don't have the correct key, so I
can't get to the file metadata. Sure, I could guess you're using ext3,
but that still leaves too many uncertainties (like directory layout and
filesystem usage) for an attacker to be able to crack your key. A brute
force attack will succeed (maybe not in the estimated lifetime of the
universe), but it's a lot harder than a brute force known plain text
attack.

Interesting to note is that NTFS supports file level encyption, but
nobody actually uses it. People who need encrypted files usually buy a
third party product that encrypts at the block level.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw
Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl  mouw@nl.linux.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Hi

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:35, Erik Mouw wrote:
> File level encryption gives an attacker information about the files on
> your system.
> 
> Suppose I can get hold of your disk and I want to know if you are
> subscribed to linux-kernel. I just mount the disk, and if I find a file
> called "dwmw2/Mail/linux-kernel", it gives me a large hint you are
> indeed subscribed. No, I can't decrypt the file, but that wasn't my
> purpose. I do however know the file metadata, like the filename, the
> owner, modification time, length, etc.

Not if the metadata were encrypted too.

You speak only of block-level encryption and of file-level (i.e.
application-based) encryption. But don't forget that there's a layer
_between_ the applications and the block device. :)

My question was what's wrong with doing encryption in the file system?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Hi

[Erik Mouw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:44:14PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:35, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > File level encryption gives an attacker information about the files on
> > your system.
> > 
> > Suppose I can get hold of your disk and I want to know if you are
> > subscribed to linux-kernel. I just mount the disk, and if I find a file
> > called "dwmw2/Mail/linux-kernel", it gives me a large hint you are
> > indeed subscribed. No, I can't decrypt the file, but that wasn't my
> > purpose. I do however know the file metadata, like the filename, the
> > owner, modification time, length, etc.
> 
> Not if the metadata were encrypted too.

But I still can see where the metadata lives on the disk, which gives
me a hint what kind of filesystem you are using. The more information,
the easier the attack.

> You speak only of block-level encryption and of file-level (i.e.
> application-based) encryption. But don't forget that there's a layer
> _between_ the applications and the block device. :)
> 
> My question was what's wrong with doing encryption in the file system?

If you want to encrypt files, you have to do it right. Any information
can lead to a possible compromise of the system, so the best is to hide
everything, which can only be done by block level encryption.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw
Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl  mouw@nl.linux.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Hi

[Jan Harkes]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 04:35:38PM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> The way to solve this is to encrypt at the block level. In that way I
> can't even mount the filesystem when I don't have the correct key, so I
> can't get to the file metadata. Sure, I could guess you're using ext3,
> but that still leaves too many uncertainties (like directory layout and
> filesystem usage) for an attacker to be able to crack your key. A brute
> force attack will succeed (maybe not in the estimated lifetime of the
> universe), but it's a lot harder than a brute force known plain text
> attack.

It mostly adds a level of difficulty, you can try to break it based on
expected filesystem types and expected known values for these
filesystems. f.i. ext2 has a reserved inodes, on a relatively fresh
install there may be several blocks with only initialized inodes
scattered across the disk. Copies of the superblock. Unknown, but
identical plaintext at different locations on disk, this way you can
derive if there is some kind of permutation of the key based on the
block/offset within the disk.

MSDOS/VFAT or other filesystems without holes will have a lot of blocks
filled with zeros. And every filesystem has some redundancy which is
used during fsck, this redundancy is a possible point of attack.

The biggest disadvantage of a block level encryption is that you would
have one key for everything and all users can either access the
filesystem or not. With file level encryption each file can be encrypted
with a unique (per user or group) key.

Oh, and there is no reason for the filesystem to give you access to
pathnames or file attributes, directory data could be encrypted just as
well and accessible for specific users only.

Jan

Re: Hi

[Bryan Henderson]

>i've copied the ext2 file system code, and changed its name in
>init function but when i try to mount some fs with the new name it
>is saying that it is not supporting,

You didn't mention loading the filesystem driver.  You did, didn't you?
Any error messages (kernel messages) issued?

Before bringing mount into the picture, look at /proc/filesystems.  If your
new filesystem type name doesn't show up in the list, you're already
broken.

--
Bryan Henderson                      IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose CA                          Filesystems

Hi

[Emerald Johansson]

I hope that you are at your best and doing well. The purpose of this letter is seeking for a pen pal like friendship and I'd love to and be honored to be friends with you if you do not mind.. If the Idea sounds OK with you, just say yes and we can take it on from there. I look forward to hear hearing from you.. My name is Emerald From Sweden 36 years , this will mean a lot to me to hear back from you.

Warm Regards.

Emerald

HI

[Mrs Suzara Maling Wan]

--
Greetings,

I have an intending proposal for you please i need you to contact my 
private

Email :wmrssuzara@gmail.com: for more updates,

Best Wishes.

Mrs Suzara

--

Hi

[Judith Guest]

I am 16 years old girl ,an orphan. I have contacted you to stand as my 
Trustee
More details will be sent to you as soon as you acknowledge my mail.
Thanks
		

Hi

[Patricia Horoho]

Hello

Hi

[906sl5glxg]

Diploma?

http://tiny.cc/ggoh07pfa9

hi

[voady4cool]

Ciao
il mio nome è vera devo dire che scintilla il mio interesse per un buon 
partner, mi piacerebbe sapere di più per lo scambio di amore e di amicizia, non 
esitate a inviarmi una e-mail attraverso il mio id mail (vera.matine @ yahoo.
com) Please in modo che io vi manderò la mia foto e ti dirà di più su myself.
awaiting tua mail in modo che si può qui passare da qui, Prenditi cura.

Hello
my name is vera i must say it spark my interest for a good partner,i will like 
to know you more to exchange love and friendship, Please feel free to send me a 
mail through my mail id ( vera.matine@yahoo.com ) so that i will send you my 
picture and tell you more about myself.awaiting your mail so that can here move 
on from here,Take care.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

hi

[keketa vieira]

My name is miss keketa. I am a female, how are you today, i
hope that every things is ok with you as it is my great
pleasure to contact you in having communication with you,
please i wish you will have the desire with me so that we
can get to know each other better and see what will happened
in future.i will be very happy if you can write me back for
easiest communication and to know all about each other, and
also give you my pictures and details about me, waiting to
hear from you soonest
keketa

Hi

[lisa hedstrand]

My name is Miss Lisa Please accept my apology if my mode of contacting you will in any way offend you. I am compelled to contact you via this medium because i needed a friend from that part of the world. We will get to know each other in details if my proposition accepted. l am a student in UK but originally from USA.

hi...

[Mrs. Xue Chong]

Is your email valid ? join me for a personal discussion

hi

[Gabriel kante]

I write to seek your help in the retrieval sum funds from US Bank account
belonging to my late Dad.

HI

[Dora Saki]

Hello Dear,
My name is Dora Saki, I hope it will not be a greater surprise to observe this request. I need your urgent assistance in every area of my life. I found and reach to your contact in order to make a dream reality. I want you to understand that happiness is made for those who look and search for it. I will send you my picture in next email for you to know whom i am. And i will like you to reply me this mail through your private email address. You also remember that distance or colour does not matters, but love and understanding matter a lot in life. I will tell you more in next email.
Thanks and God bless!
Dora.



      

hi

[Edmund P. Hilton, V]

How have you been,

Whether you are H0mMeE, at work or on the go, find what you want at our   =
  0n1!ne     st0re!

Need         med!_c@_t!0n       without a prior           pre_scr!_pt!0n?

--------------------------------

copy the address below and paste in o your web browser:

blurredness.herownpc.com

--------------------------------

vali d  for 24 hors.


Remember my sweat, my pain, my despair.=20.
said Randy Sears, vice president for auto market intelligence for the=20.
I shall not cheated wake --.
Dark ones of today, my dreams must come true:=20.
ONE=92S-SELF I sing=97a simple, separate Person;=20.

Best Regards,

Rachael Lewis

hi

[Bobbie M. Hancock]

Hey,

Make your life easier with us.

Cl!ck here for getting your he@lth pr0b1ems away at 0nce.

---------------------------------

copy the address below and paste in your web browser:

anapnograph.newtechtown.com/?zz=3Dlowcost

----------------------------------



Dark ones of today, my dreams must come true:=20.
I've had to do with fifty murderers in my career,=20.
That I had to climb, that I had to know=20.
I'll bear it better now --.
The rest of us pinned the kid down on the ground..

Later,

Jeffry Jefferson

hi

[Bety Lora]

http://www.geocities.com/alikahomapage/alika
http://www.lizaclub.da.ru
http://www.sokarim.tk

Re: hi

[Matthew Stapleton]

Why is porn spam being sent to this list?


On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 04:26:14 -0700 "Angel GrefurT" <lez_jew5@yahoo.com>
writes:
> http://lol.to/bbs.php?bbs=offspring
> Username:  LIZA-ROOM-008
> Password:   XF459J
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-newbie" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
> 
> 


Matthew Stapleton
====================================
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~staple12
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge... Hosea 4.6
====================================

Re: hi

[Matti Aarnio]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 10:10:57PM -0700, Matthew Stapleton wrote:
> Why is porn spam being sent to this list?

  Porn-spams are being sent everywhere all the time.
  The less they have text in them, that harder it is to
  detect them with keyword methods we use presently.

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 04:26:14 -0700 "Angel GrefurT" <lez_jew5@yahoo.com>
> writes:
....
> > Username:  LIZA-ROOM-008
> > Password:   XF459J
> 
> Matthew Stapleton

hi

[Angel GrefurT]

http://lizaclub.da.ru
http://lol.to/bbs.php?bbs=shakira   <<< VIP

Today Sally.

NOT NEED CREDI CARD - 

PARTY 1. VIDEO  16MB
PARTY 2. VIDEO http://pluginaccess.com/?w=preview&type=exe 3MB  <<< try now
PARTY 3. VIDEO  22MB
PARTY 4. VIDEO 33MB
PARTY 5. VIDEO  49MB
PARTY 6. VIDEO  154MB

Modem/ISDN Users: This archive features hundreds
 of movies therefore the movie previews on this page 
may take a bit of time to load for you, however please 
be patient, it will definitely be worth the wait.

%100 FREE 
Rus-SexServer