On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 11:19 -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > It's for this reason that we've chosen not to use a salt in the > default Ubuntu encrypted home directory setup. The mount passphrase > is already randomly generated, which thwarts dictionary attacks. We > decided that the extra bits of security offered by a salt were not > worth the inevitable inadvertent loss of salt by legitimate users of > ecryptfs.
How big was that salt? I'm just thinking of the UNIX password salts that were only 12 bits or so. They were intended to be brute-forced through at each login. If it is small, perhaps it is worth just scripting it to try and recover. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
