linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] TPM derived keys

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CALrw=nE-t6ZWCvPm=3XS_=-UM9D=mMaXL2GOw-QL5GOLtbcHmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:38:55 +0100
From: Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, 
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, serge@...lyn.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, 
	keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] TPM derived keys

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:30 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 14:11 +0100, Ignat Korchagin wrote:
> >   * if someone steals one of the disks - we don't want them to see it
> > has encrypted data (no LUKS header)
>
> What is the use case that makes this important?  In usual operation
> over the network, the fact that we're setting up encryption is easily
> identifiable to any packet sniffer (DHE key exchanges are fairly easy
> to fingerprint), but security relies on the fact that even knowing that
> we're setting up encryption, the attacker can't gain access to it.  The
> fact that we are setting up encryption isn't seen as a useful thing to
> conceal, so why is it important for your encrypted disk use case?

In some "jurisdictions" authorities can demand that you decrypt the
data for them for "reasons". On the other hand if they can't prove
there is a ciphertext in the first place - it makes their case harder.

> James
>