[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a34337d-3214-0a8a-5521-7727364cceb4@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:22:13 +0800
From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: add a documentation file for filesystem-level
encryption
>>> +fscrypt is not guaranteed to protect confidentiality or authenticity
>>> +if an attacker is able to manipulate the filesystem offline prior to
>>> +an authorized user later accessing the filesystem.
>>
>> How does fscrypt / Android protect against Evil Maid attack. ?
> _However_, an "Evil Maid" attacker can probably still do other, perhaps much
> more effective attacks --- e.g.
::
>. Or they could attack the actual
> file contents encryption which is not authenticated. Or they could mess around
> with filesystem metadata on the userdata partition, which is neither encrypted
> nor authenticated.
In specific, the scenario I had in mind was the above threat.
> I suppose that dm-integrity could be used to protect against some of those
> attacks, but of course it would not protect against hardware key loggers, etc.
OK.
I think AE is the only good solution for this, File-name encryption
at this stage won't solve any kind of Evil Maid attack, (as it was
quoted somewhere else in ML).
Further, below, is define but not used.
-----
#define FS_AES_256_GCM_KEY_SIZE 32
-----
Thanks, Anand
Powered by blists - more mailing lists