3 ms·
That's a shame. Honestly though, full-disk is just so darn easy, and nearly as secure. I'll probably just stick with that for a good long while. EDIT: Looks li
by pkulak 6y ago
That's a shame. Honestly though, full-disk is just so darn easy, and nearly as secure. I'll probably just stick with that for a good long while.
EDIT: Looks like LUKS is supported now, which is nice:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-homed#LUKS_home_directory https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-homed#LUKS_home...
- akvadrako 6y agoFull disk encryption is more secure. If you can't trust your system files who knows whats happening when you enter your password.
- vbezhenar 6y agoIsn’t Secure Boot supposed to solve that issue?
- scaladev 6y agoHow can Secure Boot help against, say, patched libc? You need either full disk encryption, or something like dm-verity for that.
- vbezhenar 6y agoI misunderstood your post. Of course full disk encryption is vital for security. My point was that without secure boot you can't be sure that software asking for your password is legitimate. Typical setup consists of unencrypted boot partition with Linux kernel which asks for password. You can't be sure that this Linux kernel was not patched, but Secure Boot helps to ensure that.