From: RYAN Alan Porter <ryan@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 20:31:19 PDT
To: "Patrick E. Hykkonen" <pat@tstc.edu>
Subject: RE: CryptoStacker - Suggestions
In-Reply-To: <9306031827.AA05452@tstc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.03.9306032254.C28432-b100000@rtfm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Thu, 3 Jun 1993, Patrick E. Hykkonen wrote:

> > This model of using a device driver means that there is going to have
> > to be at least two partitions on the disk: one to boot from, and one
> > to be encrypted.  The device driver itself and the operating system
> > can't be on the encrypted disk, because those components must be
> > loaded before the encrypted disk is accessible.  Most people are not
> 
> Why not have the device driver create a file (possibly of varying sizes) on 
> the hard drive which the encryption device driver then makes look like another
> drive?!?  This is how the compression programs work, seems to me a pretty

Hmm, nix on that, I would have to do some sector remapping, which would
not only slow it down and make it more vulnerable, it would just be more
crap that I would have to deal with which might crash the thing in the
long run.

Besides, I think that most people using this would actually PREFER to have
more that one partition, with one unprotected.  This would allow you to
use the setup that I have mentioned before, with one 'fast' partition and
one 'secure' partition.  You would simply have to make sure that the
system was booted from a 'fast' partition.  Quick, simple, stuff that you
don't have to be a genius to make work.  (remember we are talking about
protecting non-cypherpunks here as well as us computer gurus)

I would like to implement a system in the future which would do
compression as well as encryption (are there any good algorithms that just
happpen to do both at the same time?  Maybe somebody should get on that,
it would certainly be useful) and that would require a system like you
mention, but I will stay with simple for the first version.


-Ryan
the Bit Wallah