Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
I live in NJ. Should I be this paranoid, that every file I edit should be encrypted? Who has time for this type of craziness? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: andrew fabbro Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 1:25 AM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Adding encryption support to vi(1) vim (in ports) offers an encryption option ( http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/editing.html#encryption) Invoking vim with -x prompts for a key and then encrypts the file on save. It appears to do the right thing as far as encrypting the .swp (temporary recovery) file as well. If you later edit the file (without the -x option) it will detect the file is encrypted based on a magic it prepends and prompt for a key. Unfortunately, by default vim uses the 'zip' algorithm which is quite insecure, though you can optionally specify blowfish as your preferred algorithm. The nice thing about this versus a gpg decrypt/edit/re-encrypt cycle is that you don't have an unencrypted file temporarily lying around (or an unencrypted vi-recover file for that matter). I'm wondering if there is any interest in adding this feature to vi(1) given OpenBSD's interest in integrated crypto? Unfortunately, as a US citizen/resident, it's not clear to me that I would be able to contribute code (beyond an implementation that uses the zip algorithm) so it is probably a moot point unless one of the devs is interested but...I figured there was no harm in mentioning it. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org blog: https://raindog308.com
Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:02 AM, thornton.rich...@gmail.com wrote: I live in NJ. Should I beâ this paranoid, that every file I edit should be encrypted? Who has time for this type of craziness? Well, no one. I encrypt very few files. But keeping one's passwords and related administrivia safe, preventing unencrypted versions/tempfiles from accidentally being captured by running backups, etc. is hardly a rare use case. pwsafe (referring to the nox11 version) is a fine program but comes up a bit short if you want to include notes that are more than a brief comment, or what you want to save is not password/account-related. That's really all I was describing. On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: So you describe something which is shit. Why would we want to add something shit to vi? It would fool people into bad practices. Who benefits? Exactly. Is there no middle ground between an encrypted partition and plain text? That's an honest question. Short of encrypting a partition, most tools (gpg, etc.) require decrypting a file to plain text and then reencrypting. I was just trying to avoid having to create unencrypted temporary/intermediate/recovery copies of files as part of the editing process. Can I ask what kind of plant are you? Most people have to content themselves with the I Got Flamed By Theo de Raadt http://www.zazzle.com/i_got_flamed_by_theo_de_raadt_t_shirt-2354533488287291 21 shirt, but I seem to have qualified for the new Theo de Raadt Asked if I Was a Spy shirt :-) -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org blog: https://raindog308.com
Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
There's already a kitchen sink, it's called emacs.
Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
Is there no middle ground between an encrypted partition and plain text? Adding low-grade encrypt-with-password to lots of utilities like this does not make sense.
Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 1:33 AM, andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:02 AM, thornton.rich...@gmail.com wrote: I live in NJ. Should I be this paranoid, that every file I edit should be encrypted? Who has time for this type of craziness? Well, no one. I encrypt very few files. I think that's relevant. But keeping one's passwords and related administrivia safe, preventing unencrypted versions/tempfiles from accidentally being captured by running backups, etc. is hardly a rare use case. Let's draw a venn diagram of uses of vi and uses of a text editor capable of directly writing encrypted files. (Don't get me wrong. When I first read your original question, I was thinking, yeah, I might want one of those ./) pwsafe (referring to the nox11 version) is a fine program but comes up a bit short if you want to include notes that are more than a brief comment, or what you want to save is not password/account-related. That's really all I was describing. [...] Do one thing, do it well. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to prove correctness. Simple text editors are not hard to write, especially if you decide to not deal with variable width typefaces and such. I'd whip one up for you, but right now I'd probably be writing it in forth. 8-* Of course, gpg reads from standard input, so ... -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Adding encryption support to vi(1)
vim (in ports) offers an encryption option ( http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/editing.html#encryption) Invoking vim with -x prompts for a key and then encrypts the file on save. It appears to do the right thing as far as encrypting the .swp (temporary recovery) file as well. If you later edit the file (without the -x option) it will detect the file is encrypted based on a magic it prepends and prompt for a key. Unfortunately, by default vim uses the 'zip' algorithm which is quite insecure, though you can optionally specify blowfish as your preferred algorithm. The nice thing about this versus a gpg decrypt/edit/re-encrypt cycle is that you don't have an unencrypted file temporarily lying around (or an unencrypted vi-recover file for that matter). I'm wondering if there is any interest in adding this feature to vi(1) given OpenBSD's interest in integrated crypto? Unfortunately, as a US citizen/resident, it's not clear to me that I would be able to contribute code (beyond an implementation that uses the zip algorithm) so it is probably a moot point unless one of the devs is interested but...I figured there was no harm in mentioning it. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org blog: https://raindog308.com
Re: Adding encryption support to vi(1)
vim (in ports) offers an encryption option ( http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/editing.html#encryption) Invoking vim with -x prompts for a key and then encrypts the file on save. It appears to do the right thing as far as encrypting the .swp (temporary recovery) file as well. If you later edit the file (without the -x option) it will detect the file is encrypted based on a magic it prepends and prompt for a key. Unfortunately, by default vim uses the 'zip' algorithm which is quite insecure, though you can optionally specify blowfish as your preferred algorithm. The nice thing about this versus a gpg decrypt/edit/re-encrypt cycle is that you don't have an unencrypted file temporarily lying around (or an unencrypted vi-recover file for that matter). I'm wondering if there is any interest in adding this feature to vi(1) given OpenBSD's interest in integrated crypto? So you describe something which is shit. Why would we want to add something shit to vi? It would fool people into bad practices. Who benefits? Exactly. Can I ask what kind of plant are you? Sorry, just being funny. Funny ironic.
