Re: [PATCH 2/2] Support for VIA PadLock crypto engine
From: Jari Ruusu
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 08:37:11 EST
Michal Ludvig wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > The cryptoloop implementation is busted in more than one way, so it is
> > > > useless for security needs:
> > >
> > > Is dm-crypt any better?
> > Nope. dm-crypt has same exploitable cryptographic flaws.
> Could you be more descriptive?
cryptoloop and dm-crypt on-disk formats are FUBAR: precomputable ciphertexts
of known plaintext, and weak IV computation. Anything that claims
"cryptoloop compatible", and only that, is completely FUBAR. dm-crypt is
such. IOW, there are now _two_ backdoored device crypto implementations in
Only remaining question is: How long are mainline guys going to continue to
scam people to using backdoored device crypto?
Jari Ruusu 1024R/3A220F51 5B 4B F9 BB D3 3F 52 E9 DB 1D EB E3 24 0E A9 DD
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/