linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] dm-integrity: integrity protection device-mapper target

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50606456.7020607@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:47:02 +0200
From:	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
To:	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] dm-integrity: integrity protection device-mapper
 target

On 09/24/2012 11:55 AM, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
> Both dm-verity and dm-crypt provide block level integrity protection.

This is not correct. dm-crypt is transparent block encryption target,
where always size of plaintext == size of ciphertext.

So it can provide confidentiality but it CANNOT provide integrity protection.

We need extra space to store auth tag which dmcrypt cannot provide currently.

> dm-integrity provides a lighter weight read-write block level integrity
> protection for file systems not requiring full disk encryption, but
> which do require writability.

Obvious question: can be dm-verity extended to provide read-write integrity?

I would prefer to use standard mode like GCM to provide both encryption and
integrity protection than inventing something new.

Milan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/