Hello, As you probably have seen, there is a bug in the BETA version of Bacula when encryption is used in combination with other options such as compression or sparse files. This bug makes the backed up data unreadable.
Robert Nelson has summarized the problematic cases (see below), and supplied a fix. If I understand Robert's email correctly, this means that if you have encrypted volumes using additional options (see below), they are unreadable. We are proposing that the short term workaround is to remove any additional options you may have and re-backup your data. In the medium term (about a week), we will release an updated beta with Robert's fixes (or you can pull them from the current CVS). As Robert indicates, it could be possible to recover the data in some circumstances, but we are not planning to implement this. If you have any problems with this procedure, now is the time to speak up. Again, this involves only the BETA Bacula and encryption with additional options (Robert, please correct me if I am mistaken ...) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kern Sibbald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 5:05 PM > To: Robert Nelson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Landon Fuller'; > bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [Bacula-devel] [Bacula-users] Encryption/Compression > Conflict in CVS > > >> Perhaps if I explained the problem: >> >> Currently (as of 1.39.27) >> >> No filters = Works fine >> Sparse = Works fine >> Compression = Works fine >> Encryption = Works fine >> Sparse + Compression = Works fine >> >> Sparse + Encryption = Restore broken >> Sparse + Compression + Encryption = Restore broken >> Compression + Encryption = Restore broken >> >> With my fix (> 1.39.27): >> >> All combinations work fine. >> >> But restoration of old backups (1.39.x) using encryption alone or in >> combination with other filters is broken. Since all cases of encryption >> in combination with anything else were already broken, that just leaves >> encryption alone. >> I could special case the handling of just encryption >> so that it would be stored differently than when used in combination >> with other filters. This would allow old encrypted backups to be read >> at the expense of having two versions of the encryption and decryption >> code. >> >> Since this is a brand new feature I don't think changing the archive >> format at this point would affect that many people. Particularly >> since the archives are unreadable if they've used it in combination with >> compression or sparse file handling. >> >> I think it is safer to just say that previously written archives using >> encryption aren't readable and should be recreated. >> Best regards, Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
