[193] in The Cryptographic File System users list
Re: are there many active users of cfs still here?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (gg&ht forever)
Sat Jun 24 11:25:07 2000
From owner-cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com Sat Jun 24 15:25:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com>
Delivered-To: cfs-mtg@CHARON2.mit.edu
Received: (qmail 8436 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 15:25:07 -0000
Received: from h-135-207-30-103.research.att.com (HELO mail-green.research.att.com) (135.207.30.103)
by charon2.mit.edu with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 15:25:07 -0000
Received: from amontillado.research.att.com (amontillado.research.att.com [135.207.24.32])
by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 2F4871E007; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nsa.research.att.com (root@nsa.research.att.com [135.207.24.155])
by amontillado.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05713;
Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by nsa.research.att.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA18638 for cfs-users-list; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:47:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: nsa.research.att.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com using -f
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.30.102]) by nsa.research.att.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA18634 for <cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com>; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix)
id 99D604CE2A; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:50:22 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: cfs-users@research.att.com
Received: from lh2.rdc1.tx.home.com (ha2.rdc1.tx.home.com [24.4.0.67])
by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E0C4CE0B
for <cfs-users@research.att.com>; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:50:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mypad.com ([24.1.13.170]) by lh2.rdc1.tx.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with ESMTP
id <20000523175021.GPRW11963.lh2.rdc1.tx.home.com@mypad.com>
for <cfs-users@research.att.com>; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:50:21 -0700
Message-ID: <392AC5DA.A95976FB@mypad.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:54:34 -0600
From: gg&ht forever <lighthouse@mypad.com>
Reply-To: lighthouse@mypad.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cfs-users@research.att.com
Subject: Re: are there many active users of cfs still here?
References: <m3wvklxpxu.fsf@yuri.gweep.bc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cfs-users@research.att.com
Precedence: bulk
Well, I for one, continue to use CFS regularly. It's one of those tools
that is basically of the "configure and forget" type...that is once
you've
got it up and running you just forget about it until you have to upgrade
the OS or something.
As for CFS activity, I've forwarded an email from Matt Blaze that
appeared on
this list last March...that ought to give you some status info.
Regarding TCFS...conceptually this is a great idea and it is certainly
much faster than CFS, but here are my complaints:
1. It seems to *always* be behind wrt current kernel versions. I'm sure
it's hard to keep up, but from a user perspective, it's a problem.
2. Password protection is *very* weak. Default is to use the Linux
password
for the user utilizing TCFS. Changing passwords is cumbersome.
3. You have to supply your own encryption module if you don't like
triple DES. At least CFS has implemented Blowfish.
Hope this helps.
Scott
Brian Edmonds wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I just joined the list a week ago, and your post was the first I've seen
> Ollivier. Is this code still being actively developed and stored
> somewhere I couldn't find in my web searches? I noticed a project from
> Italy to do a crypto fs that appeared to be pretty well developed, but
> it was 2.0 kernel based, rather than the more flexible (though slower)
> user space approach that CFS uses.
>
> I'm also using CFS 1.4.0b2, on my laptop, and had to do a bit of hacking
> to get it to work with my SuSE 6.4 Linux distribution. In two of the
> files a couple variables were generated without (or later with, I'm not
> conversant with rpcgen) leading underscores that I added in manually.
>
> Also the random number generating module would never exit for me, so I
> hacked it out and replaced it with reads from /dev/urandom.
>
> Brian.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
>
> iD8DBQE5Kp9ocCEFQUX5+OwRAnJKAJ44OHJ/J37YZuOxa7YggLrtPLuENQCgs2B9
> Uyhs5FYw9kmhA/m/OhuyaTE=
> =WKvA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
