
17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Mark C. Henderson wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:48, Adam Back wrote: > > Subject: Encrypted file systems > > - Encrypted file system located in a file in another file system > > (much like DOS stacker drives) this is an ease of use criteria -- I > > suspect re-partitioning drives would put off many potential users. > There are a couple of advantages to this sort of approach (i.e. > having the encrypted filesystem live in file(s) on an ordinary > filesystem) other than ease of use. > 1. Backups are easy. One can use whatever backup software one normally > uses. > 2. The encrypted filesystem can actually live on a remote file server > with data being encrypted/decrypted on the fly on the local host. (of > course, you have to consider the security risks that you get from > being on a network). An interesting thought: One of the things that the entertainment electronics industry is pushing is the "Set Top Box" that attaches to your idiotbox and allows you to use the internet over either a POTS line, cable modem or whathave you. Problem is, there is no local hard drive. No way to store sensative data (even a hot list). With the encrypted filesystem stored on a remote machine, and using something like SSH written in a Java like language (NOTE: Of necessity MUCH more secure) to "Mount" the SFS over the network... Something like this could make the author a decent amount of money. Makes me wish I were a coderpunk.` Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com