3 ms·
I called this out in the PUREE paper: > To be fair, some tools do support support completely-random-looking disk layouts, but in most cases, they either: > 1.
by notfed 6y ago
I called this out in the PUREE paper:
> To be fair, some tools do support support completely-random-looking disk layouts, but in most
cases, they either:
> 1. Are key-based (e.g., require a 128-bit or 256-bit key) rather than password based, in which
case, the key must stored elsewhere. (Where do you store the key?)
> 2. Ask the user to store a (non-random-looking) disk-encryption header elsewhere (i.e., “detached
header mode”). (Where do you store the header?)
- tempay 6y ago> 1. Are key-based (e.g., require a 128-bit or 256-bit key) rather than password based, in which case, the key must stored elsewhere. (Where do you store the key?) Is there a reason why this is notably different? Why can't the password be hashed to get the fixed length key?
- viraptor 6y agoYes, it's a pretty standard approach. I can't even recall anything that uses passwords directly these days. Mostly due to world relying mainly on aes where you have to derive the key.
- jcynix 6y ago> 2. Ask the user to store a (non-random-looking) disk-encryption header elsewhere (i.e., “detached header mode”). (Where do you store the header?) If the header isn't needed on a daily basis, storing it as a QR-Code on paper would be a possibility.