lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mlock(1)
Hi!

> > There must be some way of being able to check the password is correct
> > without compromising security by encrypting static text and storing it
> > at a known location! Darned if I know what it is though.
>
> good point! Maybe we can pick random signed chars in a 4k block and
> guarantee their sum is always -123456. Would that be secure against
> plaintext attack right? It's more like a checksum than a magic number,
> but it should be a lot more secure than the "double" typo probability
> (and this way the password will be asked only once during resume).
> Generating those random numbers will not be the easiest thing though.

Actually, better solution probably is to encrypt 32-bit zero.

Then, you have 1:2^32 probability of accepting wrong password, still
if you try to brute-force it, you'll find many possible passwords.

If you are paranoid, encrypt 16-bit zero....
Pavel

--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.159 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site