On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Artur Rataj <arturrataj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I guess a better "mutator" would be something more complex, taking > into account your personal habits of writing passwords, likely > misspellings like "O" vs "0" if you wrote the characters off the > screen, swapped pairs etc. If unsuccessful, the program would increase > the number of mutations (breadth first search). Yup. Did that. > > Also, it might be worth checking if the 0.5 sec delay is not mostly a > loop for preventing attacks. System load might reveal an idle loop, > source analysis (profiling?) might reveal a busy loop. Yup. In the process of doing this now. > > Modifying the source of ecryptfs-unwrap-passphrase to directly include > your code might help too, as you would save on starting a process each > time. Yup. This is what I started with. But a trivial update, like hard-code the known passphrase for the control wrapped-passphrase, fails. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
