From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1015C46CD2 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F2E821F9; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:04:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org A4F2E821F9 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dDUTmUaBXQJx; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DFF821F6; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 07DFF821F6 Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92D71BF263 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82677821F6 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 82677821F6 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAhvg3vFBn_k for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::226]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BDC9821E5 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 7BDC9821E5 Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76087C0005; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from peko by dell.be.48ers.dk with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rUwCt-00Gbr3-2f; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:03:51 +0100 From: Peter Korsgaard To: Zvi Vered References: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:03:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Zvi Vered's message of "Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:54:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87il3azdfc.fsf@48ers.dk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-GND-Sasl: peter@korsgaard.com Subject: Re: [Buildroot] LKUS in buildroot 2023.02.9 X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: buildroot@buildroot.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" >>>>> "Zvi" == Zvi Vered writes: > Hello, > I'm booting an x86 Intel CPU using Linux 4.9.20 (32 bits) and buildroot > 2023.02.9 > I consider using LKUS in order to encrypt the disk. > Is it a wise decision ? LKUS? Do you mean LUKS (Linux Unified Key Setup)? LUKS is good (but is just a standard for describing the encryption meta data). Any specific reason for using such an old Linux kernel version? > The motivation: If someone will steal the disk, it will be difficult to > copy its contents. > I can not use hardware encryption because I cannot replace the disk. Like always with encryption, the difficult part is handling the encryption key - Especially if the system is to boot unattended. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot