From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263980AbTLENCH (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:02:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263985AbTLENCH (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:02:07 -0500 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.194]:53737 "EHLO mail.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263980AbTLENCF (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:02:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:02:02 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: David Wagner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: partially encrypted filesystem Message-ID: <20031205130202.GA31855@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <1070485676.4855.16.camel@nucleon> <20031204141725.GC7890@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20031204172653.GA12516@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 December 2003 19:18:26 +0000, David Wagner wrote: > > What? No. Modern cryptosystems are designed to be secure against > known plaintext attacks. Making your system more convoluted merely to > avoid providing known plaintext is a lousy design approach: the extra > complexity usually adds more risk than it removes. All cryptosystems are designed around the hope that noone figures out how to break them. Many smart people trying and failing to do so gives a good general feeling, but nothing more. It remains hope. How can you claim that modern cryptosystems are immune to known plaintext attacks? Jörn -- When you close your hand, you own nothing. When you open it up, you own the whole world. -- Li Mu Bai in Tiger & Dragon