3 ms·
The author is a maintainer of eCryptFS. For those not familiar with it, eCryptFS is an encrypted filesystem used by several Linux distributions (including Ubunt
by kijin 13y ago
The author is a maintainer of eCryptFS. For those not familiar with it, eCryptFS is an encrypted filesystem used by several Linux distributions (including Ubuntu) to protect your home directory and/or the entire disk. It serves a similar purpose to TrueCrypt, BitLocker, FileVault, etc.
For the purpose of a full-disk encryption software, fingerprints are many times weaker than a good password. The purpose of such software is to prevent a thief, the cops, the NSA, or anyone else who takes possession of your computer, from viewing the contents of your hard drive. A fingerprint won't protect you from the cops, since your prints are already all over the place and they can probably force you to provide a fresh copy anyway. In that case, fingerprint logins would only give the user an illusion of security. So it's understandable that the author doesn't want to enable fingerprint logins to his software.
For the purpose unlocking a phone, on the other hand, a fingerprint is probably good enough. The contents of the phone usually aren't encrypted, so a determined attacker will just turn the phone off, pull out the SD card and/or the internal Flash memory, and read everything off of it. Or if you're NSA, forget the phone and get the data straight from Apple. TouchID is not for NSA-proofing your phone, it's for deterring common thieves and pranksters.
tl;dr: I agree with the author that fingerprints are not a good fit for full-disk encryption software. But I don't agree that fingerprints are completely useless. It all depends on the type of attack you're trying to defend against.
- pflats 13y agoI'm pretty sure that iPhones have encrypted their data since the 3GS. That's how they "remote wipe" it. They send a message to the phone to delete the encryption key.
- kijin 13y agoAFAIK the encryption key is stored in plaintext unless you also set a passcode (many people don't), and even if you set a passcode, most of the time it's just a short number that would be trivial to brute-force in an offline attack. Of course it's also possible to use eCryptFS with a four-digit passcode, but it's strongly recommended against. The main difference between FBI-proof encryption and pickpocket-proof encryption is not in the algorithms used, but in the typical use case of each.
- pflats 13y agoYeah, I was specifically addressing "The contents of the phone usually aren't encrypted". If you have a passcode (which is required for TouchID) then your iPhone is encrypted. You can definitely brute force it. I saw an article somewhere (probably here on HN) addressing the fact. I can't find it, but if I remember correctly, it said something about Apple or an associated company quietly offering forensic help to police on bypassing the password. I think it implied they were using a ramdisk to brute force the encryption. edit: Found an Ars article about Apple doing it, but it doesn't mention anything about a ramdisk. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-will-reportedly-unlock-your-iphone-for-police-but-theres-a-wait-list/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/apple-will-reportedly-u...