Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 16:31:20 +0300 | From | Jari Ruusu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Support for VIA PadLock crypto engine |
| |
Michal Ludvig wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jari Ruusu wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > The cryptoloop implementation is busted in more than one way, so it is > > > > useless for security needs: > > > > > > Is dm-crypt any better? > > > > Nope. dm-crypt has same exploitable cryptographic flaws. > > Could you be more descriptive?
cryptoloop and dm-crypt on-disk formats are FUBAR: precomputable ciphertexts of known plaintext, and weak IV computation. Anything that claims "cryptoloop compatible", and only that, is completely FUBAR. dm-crypt is such. IOW, there are now _two_ backdoored device crypto implementations in mainline.
Only remaining question is: How long are mainline guys going to continue to scam people to using backdoored device crypto?
-- Jari Ruusu 1024R/3A220F51 5B 4B F9 BB D3 3F 52 E9 DB 1D EB E3 24 0E A9 DD - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |