| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:26:10 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > In that case, you probably want to use encfs to encrypt each home |
| 6 |
> > > directory separately. dmcrypt works on block devices, so a single home |
| 7 |
> > > partition would have a single password. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > dmcrypt supports multiple simultaneous passwords (I think 4 or something |
| 10 |
> > like that). Of course, then every user can unlock every home directory |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Which is why I recommended ecryptfs (I've only just noticed that the |
| 13 |
> previous posts mentioned encfs, that's a FUSE filesystem that is |
| 14 |
> unnecessary now the kernel have ecryptfs included). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Thanks, |
| 18 |
I didn't know about that. |
| 19 |
I'll try that, as I'm using encfs, and basically it works flawlessly. |
| 20 |
But running without fuse, is better. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Kfir |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> It's not the multiple passwords, it's separately locking each user's |
| 26 |
> data. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Guillotine operator wanted. Chance to get ahead. |
| 33 |
> |
Archives