There is really no threat or adversary. I really hope the threat is much lower than 1%. I had never dealt with encryption before, and I find it very interesting. I'd like to defend my data in case it's lost or stolen. (In this (windows) world I think an unencrypted reiserfs could be sufficient too.) So my plan is to establish an indiscernible encrypted home partition. I wouldn't like to feel any side effects, like more passwords, bigger disk usage or slower I/O throughput. I already use EncFS which is rather slow. I made some 1080i videos with my camcorder, and vlc struggles with it. On 15-09-27 20:55:54, Heinz Diehl wrote: > On 27.09.2015, Mike Nagie wrote: > > > As we just have concluded that a Diceware passphrase is much more > > secure, then I'd like to ask you: should I need more than one LUKS key? > > What's your thread model, actually? Whom do you want to protect your > data from? > > > The original idea was, creating an encrypted partition for the /home > > then I'm going to set a very strong master passphrase (I assume that > > slot 0 is the master) after that I add another LUKS key which is the > > same password as my account's. > > That would reduce your password strength to the strength of the > weakest of these two. > > > Does more than one LUKS key reduce the security? > > A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This law applies > perfectly also to this particular scenario. > > > Does it matter if I have a really strong passphrase and a not that strong second phrase? > > Think about it. It's quite obvious. > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt -- You are so lucky! _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
