Commercial, for sure. It combines fragments from well-known facts and marketing speech. And it has not understood the problem, advertizing for SAN/cloud services, where storage is not block-based but file-based. I should also note to anyone contemplating "solution" 3 that RAID1 does not read both devices on read access, and inconsistencies will only show up if you or your distro does RAID consistency checks. And of course the whole article does not apply to the SAN/cloud setting in the first place, as the attack scenario is for an unmapped encrypted filesystem and an attacker getting write access to that, i.e. the encrypted raw (block) view needs to be exported to the attacker. I do not see how that would be done in the SAN/Cloud setting. These do their own filesystem and block encryption must be done below the FS layer, there is no way around that. Arno On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 04:25:51PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: > On 31.08.2011, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > [....] > > In what way is this related to LUKS / dmcrypt? > It's plain advertising, isn't it? Gaah! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt > -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
