Re: mlock(1)

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 03:55:52 EST


Hi!

> > There must be some way of being able to check the password is correct
> > without compromising security by encrypting static text and storing it
> > at a known location! Darned if I know what it is though.
>
> good point! Maybe we can pick random signed chars in a 4k block and
> guarantee their sum is always -123456. Would that be secure against
> plaintext attack right? It's more like a checksum than a magic number,
> but it should be a lot more secure than the "double" typo probability
> (and this way the password will be asked only once during resume).
> Generating those random numbers will not be the easiest thing though.

Actually, better solution probably is to encrypt 32-bit zero.

Then, you have 1:2^32 probability of accepting wrong password, still
if you try to brute-force it, you'll find many possible passwords.

If you are paranoid, encrypt 16-bit zero....
Pavel

--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/