Sunday, January 7, 2018

information 3 ...and the funniest...the so vip president, does not use a password, as you think a password 256 hash looks like...he uses the old school, unicode 9. non printable characters...meaning "emoji's" just like a smile...:) or the grandmother house, or a birthday cake.

Unicode Version 9.0

The Unicode Consortium accepted the following emoji 72 emojis for Unicode 9.0. This update was released on June 21, 2016. Most vendors added support for this update within the 2016 calendar year. Sample images and more about Unicode 9.0.
Emoji 4.0 was published in late 2016, which added additional emoji professions.

New in Unicode 9

Related

at No comments:

welcome back to war! special insert and the "football" suitcase. information 1-2 PELICAN™ 1490CC1 - 1490 W/ SPECIAL INSERT


information 3
I want to decrypt some files to RAM so as not to have a record of them on the hard drive. I though about using tmpfs:
mount -t tmpfs -o size=64k tmpfs /ram

More permanently in /etc/fstab (untested):
# ram drive

tmpfs   /tmpfs  tmpfs   size=64k    0 0

Having read /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt I see that tmpfs can also be part of swap and thus on the hard drive.

Would it be better to use ramfs:
mount -t ramfs -o size=64k /dev/ram /ram

and in /etc/fstab (untested):
/dev/ram    /ram    ramfs  size=64k 0 0
kperrier
Ars Legatus Legionis
Tribus: Nashville, TN
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 15530
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:00 am
It what purpose are you decrypting the files? If you are going to edit the files with vim, by default the file will be copied to /var/tmp, IIRC. If it is for processing by another program, you might be ok.
neilhwatson
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 1236
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:18 am
Doesn't Vim create a local copy in the current directory?
.filename.swp
Glaucus
Ars Tribunus Militum
Registered: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 2635
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:53 pm
Why not just set up an encrypted swap? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/disk-cryptography.xml
tm
Ars Centurion
Registered: Apr 18, 1999
Posts: 385
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:22 pm
quote:
Originally posted by neilhwatson:
I want to decrypt some files to RAM so as not to have a record of them on the hard drive.


Are these files encrypted with gpg? And maybe you might consider using an encrypted filesystem (like encfs or the loopback fs approach) as the resting place for the files.

But to answer your question directly, it looks like you want to use ramdisks. On my ubuntu laptop, it looks like there are already a bunch configured:
$ dmesg |grep RAMDISK

RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 8192K size 1024 blocksize

RAMDISK: cramfs filesystem found at block 0

RAMDISK: Loading 4524KiB [1 disk] into ram disk... done.
neilhwatson
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 1236
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:27 am
tm,

File could be encrypted via Gpg. However, I prefer using OpenSSL. FYI, I would used it like this:
nwatson@valetta ~/tmp $ openssl enc -aes256 -in secret -out secret.en

enter aes-256-cbc encryption password:

Verifying - enter aes-256-cbc encryption password:

nwatson@valetta ~/tmp $ ls -l secret*

-rw-r--r--  1 nwatson users 44 Aug 25 08:12 secret

-rw-r--r--  1 nwatson users 64 Aug 25 10:31 secret.en

nwatson@valetta ~/tmp $ openssl enc -d -aes256 -in secret.en

enter aes-256-cbc decryption password:

This is a secret



site    user    password

I have thought about using an encrypted file system but believe it takes a little more effort to use. One has to mount and unmount the system, usually as root.
LordHunter317
Ars Legatus Legionis
Tribus: MD (Waiting)
Registered: Apr 17, 2001
Posts: 22394
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:38 am
Can I ask why you prefer symmetric encryption to a proper public/private key scheme?

As that stands, it's much more vulnerable to a dictionary attack than a proper keypair scheme, ala GnuPG. Less work to be done to decrypt the data.

Attacking a GPG keypair requires a hash computation, then a symmetric key decryption, then a comparsion of the hashes, then decryption of the actual data.

[edit]Thinking about it more (my head is fried today) GPG isn't really more work. It requires an extra SHA1 hash first, which while is some work, isn't really substantial.

However, OOB, it is safe from any sort of precomputation. The attacker can't do any work ahead of time until he gets your keyring.
[/edit]

And with all data storage schemes where a human will be interacting with the process directly, it's the password that's the weakest part.

Just curious if you have a specific reason.
neilhwatson
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 1236
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:21 am
The problem I see with keypair schemes is the dependency on the key files. What if I loose the file? In this instance it is not such an issue. I was drawing on the scheme I use for off site backups. I encrypt them via passphrase only because, should I need my backups, I may not be in possession of the key file.
LordHunter317
Ars Legatus Legionis
Tribus: MD (Waiting)
Registered: Apr 17, 2001
Posts: 22394
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:32 am
quote:
Originally posted by neilhwatson:
The problem I see with keypair schemes is the dependency on the key files. What if I loose the file?
You go to great care to not lose the private key then. Multiple backups in multiple secure places, in multiple formats, would be a good idea.

I can understand that. The only thing worth nothing is that your scheme, as-is, is vulnerable to precomputed dictionary attacks.

So, make that rather difficult by doing two things:
  • Use a salt.
  • Use a really long password, or one with non-printable or other similiarly uncommon characters
This will make precomputed dictionary attacks impossible, as the attacker will be unable to precompute the key without your data, or impossible because he won't precompute the key.

It goes without saying that hte attacker still has to try all these keys, so if the data set is large, it would still take a very long time. However, it's still worthwhile to force them to search as large of a space as possible.
neilhwatson
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 1236
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:45 am
His Lordship offers a compelling arguement for key pair encryption. I don't use key pairs much except with SSH. Can you answer a few questions for me?

I generate a key pair using Gpg or ssl and encrypt the private key with a strong passphrase. Then I encrypt my files using the public key. Thus only my private key can decrypt them. I've never had much luck generating ssl key pairs. Ssl generates a single file that contains both keys
(ssl keys howto). How doe I use it?

My backups run nightly. Weekly, I manually copy my backup to a remote location. The local files are not encrypted. I encrypt them on the fly by passing them through SSL
openssl enc -aes256 -k $SSLPASS -in $file | ssh user@example.com "cat > /home/username/backup/$file.en"
That example uses just a passphrase. How would I do this using a public key?
tm
Ars Centurion
Registered: Apr 18, 1999
Posts: 385
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:03 pm
quote:
Originally posted by neilhwatson:
I have thought about using an encrypted file system but believe it takes a little more effort to use. One has to mount and unmount the system, usually as root.


Well, re: openssl, I'd take a good look at its history of vulnerabilities.

encfs can run w/o root privileges from what I've read. I'm sure some other (lufs-based?) can as well.
LordHunter317
Ars Legatus Legionis
Tribus: MD (Waiting)
Registered: Apr 17, 2001
Posts: 22394
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:10 pm
quote:
Originally posted by neilhwatson:
His Lordship offers a compelling arguement for key pair encryption.
Well, or just using a salt and a really long/truly hard password
Image failed to load - try launching in new window


I jsut prefer using GPG because it does everything correctly for you, except the password. Meaning I don't have to remember to tell OpenSSL to use a salt or anything.

quote:
I generate a key pair using Gpg or ssl and encrypt the private key with a strong passphrase. Then I encrypt my files using the public key. Thus only my private key can decrypt them.
Close enough, yeah. The actual process for storing a private key is a little more complicated, but that's the idea.

quote:
How doe I use it?
For RSA, given the key:
openssl rsa -in file.key -pubout file.pub
will give you the public key in a file.

quote:
How would I do this using a public key?
openssl rsautl -encode -in data -inkey file.pub -pubkey
But you really probably just want to do GPG, as it'll make the headache easier. Really. It jsut makes things like the managment of keys and whatnot much less of a hassle.

However, see the OpenBSD openssl manpage for a good reference, if that's what you really want to use.

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=363110



at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)