[196] in The Cryptographic File System users list
Re: cfs and alternatives (was are there many active...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Edmonds)
Sun Jun 25 20:43:03 2000
From owner-cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com Mon Jun 26 00:43:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com>
Delivered-To: cfs-mtg@CHARON2.mit.edu
Received: (qmail 18695 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 00:43:03 -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; 26 Jun 2000 00:43:03 -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 8D88A1E021; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nsa.research.att.com (majordomo@nsa.research.att.com [135.207.24.155])
by amontillado.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA24104;
Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by nsa.research.att.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA02971 for cfs-users-list; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:57 -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 UAA02967 for <cfs-users@nsa.research.att.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix)
id 6C7184CE27; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:54 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: cfs-users@research.att.com
Received: from lios.gweep.bc.ca (a3a17164.sympatico.bconnected.net [209.53.11.73])
by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F884CE14
for <cfs-users@research.att.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by lios.gweep.bc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with UUCP id RAA09073
for cfs-users@research.att.com; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:42:53 -0700
Received: by yuri.gweep.bc.ca (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 80C3155D5C; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: cfs-users@research.att.com
Subject: Re: cfs and alternatives (was are there many active...)
References: <20000625235758.7140B35DC2@smb.research.att.com>
From: Brian Edmonds <brian@gweep.bc.ca>
Date: 25 Jun 2000 17:42:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: "Steven M. Bellovin"'s message of "Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:57:58 -0400"
Message-ID: <m3zoo9qnlk.fsf@yuri.gweep.bc.ca>
Lines: 34
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-cfs-users@research.att.com
Precedence: bulk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> writes:
>> Currently I'm using serpent, which was recommended by the docs
> Although Serpent is believed to be very strong -- it's one of the AES
> finalists -- it's quite slow in software.
- From a non-rigorous evaluation the performance seems more than adequate.
On my Celeron 400 laptop I've noticed no perceptible loss of performance
(or battery life). Of course, my performance needs are mild, as I'm
using it on /home, which only serves my home directory (including
occasional compilation), as well as all of the files for my local INN
news server.
I'm definitely interested in all the experienced advice I can acquire on
the subject, however. For reference, the international crypto patches
claim to support the blowfish, 3des, dfc, idea, mars, rc5, rc6, cast,
and twofish algorithms (plus md5 and sha1). I encountered compilation
errors with cast, but did not spend time debugging the problem. My
kernel has serpent built in, and all but cast and twofish (they're
configured differently from the others, so I dropped twofish with cast
for simplicity) built as modules.
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/>
iD8DBQE5VqcDcCEFQUX5+OwRAqzoAJ9SjCsiFGAacy+h0JCeB0B4T6KNJACfY7iS
DXi4duDObz1ysL2lq1Wm50E=
=E1R2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
