dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) writes: >(1) having an unencrypted option at all is one of the ways spooks like >to weaken cryptosystems; it creates ways to force/cause people to use >it when they didn't mean to.
People have to be very clear in making that choice and they actually use it for a reason. Consider the alternatives that are much weaker and don't protect anything at all. Or consider the alternative to create separate tools that satisfy the requirements that the HPN patch was created for. Will that be better? Also consider that people believe their data is safe in the current virtualized world, just because someone calls "encryption". >(2) if you don't encrypt everything, you're telling anyone who's >listening which data's important. Gung znxrf lbhe choyvpnyyl fgngrq bcvavba abg vzcbegnag?
