Re: future proof file encryption

2009-03-02 Thread David Shaw
On Mar 2, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:37:53PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: For long-term photographic storage, make a print from photographic film on archival-quality print stock. Also, I'm given to understand that black and white photographs survive th

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-03-02 Thread Mark H. Wood
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:37:53PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > For long-term photographic storage, make a print from photographic film > on archival-quality print stock. Also, I'm given to understand that > black and white photographs survive the aging process much better than > color. Silve

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-03-01 Thread peter
I've been amazed by the variety of thoughtful comments since I posted. I've read all those - and a bit more besides. I'm ashamed at my ignorance when I contacted the list last Thursday. I comfort myself with the thought that it's only from ignorance that you can ever feel complete knowledge could b

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-28 Thread Werner Koch
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:25, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: > After a little thought, it occurred to me that perhaps Sven meant there > are three errors and it's not known where. This turns into a slightly > more complex case, but still within the realm of possibility: just over > twenty-two million po

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Sven Radde
Hi! Robert J. Hansen schrieb: > After a little thought, it occurred to me that perhaps Sven meant there > are three errors and it's not known where. I also meant something like some 512 bytes of the file being unreadable because of failure of the corresponding disc sector. But I agree that singl

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread David Shaw
On Feb 27, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: For long-term photographic storage, make a print from photographic film on archival-quality print stock. Also, I'm given to understand that black and white photographs survive the aging process much better than color. It's because black a

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
(Replying to David, but it's really for Joseph) David Shaw wrote: > On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote: > >> Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING >> them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any >> computer-based technology. And,

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
John Clizbe wrote: > All too often we see folks too overly invested in a creation to accept > objective criticism of the idea. There also seems to be a tendency to misread what I think are very neutral statements as being very dry snark. E.g., when I said I didn't see the reasoning, and having re

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread David Shaw
On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote: Okay, I've resisted getting into this discussion long enough, and I can't stands no more! Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any computer-bas

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Michel Messerschmidt
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:22:56PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Hard drives tend not to crash or overheat when they're powered down, > properly mothballed, and put in long-term storage. Unless your photos are made for your grandchildren only, I don't believe in a personal "dead" long-term sto

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread John Clizbe
Christopher J. Walters wrote: > I know quite enough about the field without your snide and foolish remarks. I > refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Statement one: I'll ignore as other readers may make their own opinions as to the quality of knowledge demonstrated. All

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Christopher J. Walters
Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I said 'about'. JPEG was standardized in 1994; PNG in 1996; SVG in 2001. > >> So tell me, what compression software are *you* talking about? > > Wavelets. Fractals. Arithmetic coding. The data compression field is > alive and well and constantly getting better. Chec

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
Christopher J. Walters wrote: > I did, later in my message. I didn't see it. Looking over it, I still don't. > I come from the early days of Fidonet, and BBS's. It is possible for > a CRC32c checksum to show "OK" when there have been changes. Has > always been this way. If you use an archiver

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Christopher J. Walters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Christopher J. Walters wrote: >> That's why it would be a good idea, in my opinion, to use a public >> key pair, and a weaker cipher than AES to encrypt data like family >> photos. > > I cannot for the life of me see what's

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Joseph Oreste Bruni
Okay, I've resisted getting into this discussion long enough, and I can't stands no more! Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any computer-based technology. And, you could store them in shoeboxes.

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
Christopher J. Walters wrote: > That's why it would be a good idea, in my opinion, to use a public > key pair, and a weaker cipher than AES to encrypt data like family > photos. I cannot for the life of me see what's leading you to give this counsel. Would you care to share your reasoning? > I wo

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Christopher J. Walters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Sven Radde wrote: > Hi! > > It is probably one of the best choices for the purpose, however, in > general, long-term archival and encryption don't go together nicely. > Neither does compression or similar. Many algorithms or encryption modes > are r

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
Robert J. Hansen wrote: > With a 256-bit cipher, if you're missing 3 bits, there are only eight > possible keys. This is not an obstacle. After a little thought, it occurred to me that perhaps Sven meant there are three errors and it's not known where. This turns into a slightly more complex cas

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
Sven Radde wrote: > Imagine the session-key part of an OpenPGP message be destroyed. > Commonly, this will be far less than 1% of the actual data, but even > with 99% intact, you won't have a chance of recovering *anything* from it. Err. What? With a 256-bit cipher, if you're missing 3 bits, the

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread vedaal
Sven Radde email at sven-radde.de wrote on Fri Feb 27 14:55:39 CET 2009 : >When using encrypted backups, 100% data integrity plays a much greater >role than when just storing unencrypted data. for really long term encryption, would guess that it is more likely that there would be a problem wit

Re: Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Sven Radde
Hi! Robert J. Hansen schrieb: > GnuPG conforms to the OpenPGP standard for cryptography. That means > there are ... what ... 14 or so compatible implementations. You don't > have to rely on GnuPG; there are a lot of other options out there. This > is very good for purposes of long-term storage.

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Robert J. Hansen
peter wrote: > Is it true to say then, that if you wanted someone to be able to > decrypt a (symmetrically encrypted) file, they'd need to know the > algorithm used, the key and they'd also have to use the same program > to decrypt as used to encrypt the file? Let's not use words like "algorithm"

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread Moritz Schulte
> Is it true to say then, > that if you wanted someone to be able to decrypt a > (symmetrically encrypted) file, they'd need to know the algorithm used, > the key and they'd also have to use the same program to decrypt as used > to encrypt the file? Not quite. In general: you shouldn't base the se

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-27 Thread peter
Thanks for all your responses - and the speed of them. The shoe box works fine for my pre-digital snaps - not so good for the post digital ones! Currently, I dump my camera into my computer, sort out the interesting images, archive them and dump the archive into Amazon's S3. Then I feel safe from

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-26 Thread Mark H. Wood
Staggering off-topic a bit, this also points out that, for a variety of reasons, if you want to store data for the long term, you need to establish a periodic review of every single item in your archive. You need to be aware of obsolescent medium types and file formats and suchlike, and recode at-

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-26 Thread Werner Koch
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:54, s...@intertivity.com said: > i'm not aware of all file formats but you should stick with PKCS#12 format > for symmetric encryption. > It's an open standard, so I'm sure openssl and windows encryption can handle Well kind of. PKCS#12 is likely the most ugly encryption s

Re: future proof file encryption

2009-02-26 Thread gerry_lowry (alliston ontario canada)
Encryption is unnecessary with this low tech solution: burn them to DVDs, make at least two copies, put one copy in a safe deposit box at your bank. Perhaps give the other in a do not open envelope to your lawyer or someone that you can trust 100%. This is still a problem because who knows if DVD

RE: future proof file encryption

2009-02-26 Thread Sascha Kiefer
Hi peter, i'm not aware of all file formats but you should stick with PKCS#12 format for symmetric encryption. It's an open standard, so I'm sure openssl and windows encryption can handle it. Gnugp uses OpenPGP file formats. Cheers, Sascha -Original Message- From: gnupg-users-boun...@gnu