Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #210536
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster |
| Date | 2019-07-01 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yf4QV-4lP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <yeEMN-5mL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yeLbA-OY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <yeZod-Y5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf1q2-2o4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf4Hg-4hL-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 08:33:35AM -0500, David Wright wrote: >The grey area is for me is the relative benefit of encrypting file by >file compared with the whole partition. Assuming that there's just one >passphrase involved in each scenario, is more protection given by the >former method? After all, once a partition is unlocked, all users on >the system are able to read all the files, subject to the normal unix >permissions, ACLs, etc. One fairly attractive feature of the file (or filesystem) level encryption is it can be layered on top of an existing partition/install relatively easily, no need to resort to repartitioning. I think this was one reason that it was a recommended approach in Ubuntu, at least, integrated to some extent with their installer (Although I think no longer). It never reached that level of support in Debian, which offers block-level encryption in the installer instead. Two drawbacks: it does not protect you from accidentally writing sensitive information to a file outside of that area (/tmp, or /var/tmp, or inside an email in exim's spool directory under /var, or in paged-out virtual memory written to an unencrypted swap space, or who knows where else). the implementations are quirky (layered filesystems have always been, and continue to be, awkward, with some semantic corner-cases still misbehaving today with overlay2 and container work loads) -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-30 12:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-06-30 17:40 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2019-06-30 18:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 10:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 15:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 15:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 16:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 22:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-01 15:40 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 15:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 22:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 22:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-02 01:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-07-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-06-30 19:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2019-06-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-06-30 21:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 09:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 16:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 16:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 17:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 16:20 +0200
70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 14:10 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 14:40 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 15:00 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 15:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-02 15:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 16:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 16:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-02 21:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> - 2019-07-03 09:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-03 10:10 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-03 11:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Geoff <unit735@bigpond.com> - 2019-07-03 04:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-08 11:20 +0200
csiph-web