From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:05:55 +0800
To: "Mark C. Henderson" <mch@squirrel.com>
Subject: Re: Encrypted file systems
In-Reply-To: <9607141307.TE28806@squirrel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960714195300.2891A-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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