cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1993-06-01 - Crypto anarchy in a VW? (not the bug)

Header Data

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e19c793d3e00162309b05b50a98709d9c4e8d7b4d56c9254cbad5cbfe630f7c6
Message ID: <9306012040.AA27161@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <199306011955.AA29541@flubber.cc.utexas.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-06-01 20:06:15 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 13:06:15 PDT

Raw message

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 13:06:15 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Crypto anarchy in a VW? (not the bug)
In-Reply-To: <199306011955.AA29541@flubber.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <9306012040.AA27161@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I argue that encrypted hard disks should be encrypted at the transfer
level.

>Actually I was sort of thinking of the keying being done on a per-user
>basis.  

Never fear.  Layered encryption is the way of the future.  One layer
of encryption for the disk as a whole, another for the users.  When
the stuff gets cheap enough, it will be everywhere.

The question is "Who is your opponent?"  If you are concerned with the
users against each other, then use user level encryption.  If you are
concerned with the outside world against the machine, then encrypt at
the disk controller or device driver level.  If you are concerned
about both, then do both.

Eric

Thread