On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 21:40:28 CEST, Ralf Ramsauer wrote: > On 10/19/14 22:13, Cpp wrote: > > This circuitry will > > be reponsible for physical protection i.e. safe keeping the encryption > > key and destroy it in case an attacker tries to access it. > > Use some epoxy to prevent easy access to RAM > > chips... cold boot anyone? > Erm, just my two cents, but do you *really* think that this is a threat > to you? > In my opinion, costs and benefits should maintain balance... > > And I am quite sure that your self-made tamper safe solution will > probably fail, if someone is really willing to break into your system. Actually, it has a pretty good chance of working well. Once. And if it is not too obvious and nowhere documented that the attacker can get at beforehand. Arno > So I think ssh'ing to your system and entering the passphrase manually > remains the best solution. > > Cheers > Ralf > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718 FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718 ---- A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato 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
