On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:04:08 CEST, Michael Kjörling wrote: [...] > That's not to say that LUKS is invulnerable, especially in practice. > It does however make it seem likely that an adversary would pick a > different attack. It would be much cheaper, and less obvious, to > install a key logger, or hire some criminals to kidnap and torture > your family until you give up the passphrase. Or maybe expose what websites you were subscribed on to your wive, or hack your computer and put some illegal stuff on it and threaten to tell the authorities. "Rubber hose" crypto does not need physical presence anymore these days. I very much agree, and so does what we observe in practice. The crypto can be made hard enough to be secure in the sense that an attack on it costs far too much. I believe LUKS has that at this time with the defaults. But the surrounding systems are an entirely different matter and massively more complex, and even more so when you leave the computer and include the user. It is important to allways look at the complete situation in applied crypto and IT security in general (which is one of the main things that makes it so hard) or you end up with a house that has a 30 centimeter steel door at the front and only a fly-net at the backdoor. Regards, Arno -- 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
