Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster
Date	2019-07-02 01:50 +0200
Message-ID	<yfedA-1Fo-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<yeEMN-5mL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf1q2-2o4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf4Hg-4hL-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <yfaCZ-7Sw-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon 01 Jul 2019 at 15:56:14 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 01 July 2019 09:33:35 David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 01 Jul 2019 at 06:05:52 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 01 July 2019 03:52:55 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:45:57PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > >At this point, I'd call it a buster delaying bug.  That last is
> > > > > going to cost too many that can't ignore it and don't have
> > > > > unencrypted backups. Thats going to be a lot of very bad PR.
> > > >
> > > > It's the release teams call, generally speaking, and one of the
> > > > things they might factor in is the size of the user-base for the
> > > > troublesome package. I'm surprised to find that it's extremely
> > > > small according to popcon data: less than 1% of reporters:
> > > > https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ecryptfs-utils
> > > >
> > > > Compare just two alternatives:
> > > >
> > > > encfs: 1.14% https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=encfs
> > > > cryptsetup: 15%
> > > > https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=cryptsetup
> > >
> > > That does put a better light on it.  From the comments so far, I was
> > > thinking I'm one of the few not using it. I've depended on dd-wrt
> > > between me and the internet for the last 16 years, and even before
> > > that I was on dialup and the dialup folks didn't have enough
> > > bandwidth to attract the black hats, so I've never been touched.
> >
> > I was under the impression that these two forms of security, firewalls
> > and encryption, are completely orthogonal. Once you've unlocked, say,
> > an encrypted partition, you're now reliant on the firewall to keep
> > strangers out of your files. OTOH a perfect firewall is of no benefit
> > when your laptop is stolen.
> >
> > > With all the publicity this thread has given the issue, I'll change
> > > my mind (as if it matters to the team :) and say adequate notice and
> > > mitigating paths seems to have been given. Those that are using it
> > > I'd call pretty advanced and are reading this list just for the
> > > notices given so they shouldn't be surprised. So I'll do an Andy
> > > Capp and shuddup.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Whole filesystem encryption would be a total non-starter for me.

Fair enough. Could you reveal why, or are your reasons cryptic too?

> File by 
> file with different passwd's according to whats in the file would make 
> far more sense to me. Thats my $0.02.

I can't see how anyone would cope with a scheme like that. How would
you remember all those passwords?

OTOH I can see that each file must have an individual encryption key,
but the encryption scheme looks after generating those. Otherwise
you would have a large sample of encrypted but known-cleartext files
available for cracking attempts. (Remember that the filenames are not
encrypted, and many files on a system will have entirely predictable
contents, eg much of /usr, your Debian package cache, and so on.

Cheers,
David.

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