On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Dale Amon <a...@vnl.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 07:55:09PM -0400, Sam Smith wrote: >> >> I use "SpiderOak" because it offers client-side encryption. It provides the >> security & privacy I seek. >> >> I'd prefer to use Ubuntu One, but until it supports client-side AES 256-bit >> encryption & additionally encrypts the decryption key itself (like SpiderOak >> does) I won't even consider it. > > And rightly so. With the new NSA capabilities going into > place and the atmosphere around the world, you are > absolutely not safe in your privacy if it is possible > for anyone to acquire your keys or decrypt your files > without stealing your computer and beating or threatening > the password out of you. > > I include various State's laws seizures and court orders > under the classification of 'stealing and threatening'.
Encrypting the encryption key has nothing to do with security, you guys are spreading FUD and assumptions now IMO. Encrypting the key has to do with usability, it's no more secure than having a single encryption key that you have memorized and actually it's the same concept except fragmented between you and the data... they still need only attempt to break into a single file and then they have access to all the other files... They encrypt your encryption key because it's much more feasible to re-encrypt a single file then it is to re-encrypt the entire set of fragmented data. Whether on your computer or not if you have gigabytes or hundreds of gigabytes of data it could take quite a long time to re-encrypt it unless you have dedicated crypto hardware. Then you have to re-upload all that data again, wasting their bandwidth and wasting more space on their servers. This is why utilities just create a strong encryption key for themselves and encrypt that file with your key. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
