Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:48:50 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |