WDef
Group: Members
Posts: 798
Joined: Sep. 2005 |
 |
Posted: June 18 2007,20:34 |
 |
| Quote | | update: just found a bug in aespipe; created an .aes file that restored fine once, but then stopped restoring files if I tried it again (everything looked fine in the termimal window, but files never appeared on the disk). |
Can't say I've ever seen that. Sounds like you are running out of space on root or the device?
Rather than unpacking in place, I suggest making a directory, make sure there is space, cd to that, then run the tar decryption there, so all the decrypted files unpack into that directory.
@Curaga:
| Quote | | IBcrypt is also a lot faster than aespipe, especially compared to AES with 50 000 iterations and older computers. |
Read the aespipe readme. It's set to 100 by default. I'm probably the only person in the world that advocates setting bz2aespipe password hash iterations to 50,000 (or more) ;=) That script is only one of its applications, btw.
I wasn't recommending not using bcrypt, I'm not familiar enough with it. It may well be faster. Better? I doubt it +++. These progs do different things with different algorithms. aespipe is designed to encrypt streams, and can also encrypt entire filesystems with aes128 so they can be mounted with loop-aes. It can also use gpg-encrypted keys and provides a choice of hash algorithms.
I haven't compared speeds with bcrypt, but that's not all that helpful with different ciphers. I have in the past compared aespipe with gnupg running in a named pipe with the same ciphers on the same data, and aespipe is much faster than gnupg.
The thing with encryption often isn't the cipher or key length per se - it's usually the particular implementation or security issues on the particular system that provides the hole. For example, overwriting the data twice isn't necessarily secure - though it might just be on new high density media, on older drives it could perhaps be recovered. A paranoid Guttman wipe (35 times in a special sequence) is only of extra value on very old drives.
Better to use shred -u -n 20 or something and nuke the plaintext data, or, use wipe.dsl or similar. And don't use swap, or if you do, turn it off afterwards and shred the swap device, then make the swap again. But the experts would say never write plaintext to an unencrypted drive in the first place.
If you're advocating getting bcrypt into the base it may well be a good candidate since it's small.
BTW don't confuse DES with 3DES - they are quite different. DES is absolutely useless, yes. Last I heard 3DES was still(?) ok - for now.
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
