Re: mlock(1)

From: Pavel Machek (pavel_at_ucw.cz)
Date: 09/28/04

  • Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [Patch] i386: Xbox support" 
    Date:	Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:48:50 +0200
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>

    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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [Patch] i386: Xbox support"

    Relevant Pages