From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Edward Shushkin <edward@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for keying encrypted filesystem
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:58:04 +0400
Sender: edward
Message-ID: <3E88496C.E83B780F@namesys.com>
References: <200303282026.23543.phma@webjockey.net> <200303291155.40419.phma@webjockey.net> <3E85E338.CEAA7DC7@namesys.com> <200303301130.24136.phma@webjockey.net> <3E8824B4.55C63A55@namesys.com> <3E88300C.22B54FD7@namesys.com> <20030331133618.GO8452@hvs.envisage.co.za>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-13487-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Hendrik Visage <hvisage@envisage.co.za>
Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com

Hendrik Visage wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:09:48PM +0400, Edward Shushkin wrote:
> > > > There isn't any guarantee with all 20 either,
> > >
> > > Yes of course, but with all the 20 bytes I have a guarantee of SHA1 stability
> > > announced in appropriate papers, and I do have nothing for 19 bytes..
> >
> > So from this standpoint I would rather prefer 16-byte ID created by full-grade md5,
> > then 19-byte ID created by restricted SHA1. Maybe this standpoint is too conservative,
> > but this is right..
> 
> The question that should be answered:
> 
>  Are the design suppose to withstand scrutiny from people like the NSA
> and other crypto gurus, or just for the mom-a-pop-shops ?

I didn't invent something new..
I don't understand what should withstand scrutiny from crypto gurus.. md5? SHA?
Edward.