On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM, John Magolske <[email protected]> wrote: > Would filename encryption impact the rsync process in any way? Another > issue related to filename encryption would be retrieving files. If all > file & directory names are encrypted, it seems that to retrieve any > particular file would involve retrieving the entire ***GB chunk and > decrypting it locally. This is why I'm hoping the sshfs scenario might > work. I'll give it a try when I get a remote set up, just curious if > anyone has experience decrypting a remote directory locally via sshfs, > and if there might be any security issues related to that approach.
I personally don't know how well eCryptfs is going to work on top of sshfs. eCryptfs is known to be broken when stacked on top of NFS and Samba. In general, I'm wary of stacking eCryptfs on top of anything other than a normal Linux filesystem (ie, ext3, ext4, xfs, etc). As for filenames, they stay the same, even if the content changes, so rsync will deal with them just fine. So that's cool. It is a little harder to find the particular file that you need, when the filename is encrypted. That kinda stinks. We've been talking for years about writing a little C program, ecryptfs-decrypt-filename and ecryptfs-encrypt-filename, that takes a filename as an argument, and spits out the encrypted or decrypted value. This would certainly help in finding files and paths. It doesn't exist yet. Sorry. -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Core Developer _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
