| 1 |
On 2017-05-21 10:01, Ian Zimmerman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 2017-05-21 17:59, tuxic@××××××.de wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > cryptsetup seems to be of another flavor than encfs, since its depends |
| 6 |
> > on gpg (see below), which encfs does not use as far as I know. |
| 7 |
> > I think encfs uses symmetric ciphers and cryptsetup uses a pub/private |
| 8 |
> > key pair. But I am by no means a cryptologist (I even cant spell this |
| 9 |
> > correctly...or...? ;) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The binary may link to gpg, and the package may depend on it (I haven't |
| 12 |
> checked), but the way I use it is definitely symmetric cryptography. I |
| 13 |
> know enough to be sure of that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But I omitted another essential difference between encfs and cryptsetup |
| 16 |
(and also, apparently, between ecryptfs and cryptsetup) which Simon has |
| 17 |
helpfully pointed out. Sorry that I forgot about this at first. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups |
| 21 |
Personal signed mail: please _encrypt_ and sign |
| 22 |
Don't clear-text sign: |
| 23 |
http://primate.net/~itz/blog/the-problem-with-gpg-signatures.html |
Archives