Timothy Sipples wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:15:23 -0400, Bruce Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"IBM intends to deliver a software-based file encryption solution for z/OS
that leverages the existing z/OS key management capabilities provided
within the Integrated Cryptographic Services Facility
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:15:23 -0400, Bruce Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"IBM intends to deliver a software-based file encryption solution for z/OS
>>that leverages the existing z/OS key management capabilities provided
>>within the Integrated Cryptographic Services Facility (ICSF) in 2005. More
"IBM intends to deliver a software-based file encryption solution for z/OS
that leverages the existing z/OS key management capabilities provided
within the Integrated Cryptographic Services Facility (ICSF) in 2005. More
information will be provided at a later date."
It doesn't say "tape" so
>Timothy, I just scanned the z/OS 1.7 announcement letter 205-167 (on the
>IBM announcements site) and I can't find the reference you mention. I
>searched for all references to "crypt". Can you point me to the right
>place?
Here it is:
"IBM intends to deliver a software-based file encryption
On 2 Aug 2005 21:47:45 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Joel wrote on 03/08/2005 12:32:05 PM:
>
>> Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all
>> tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating? The obvious
>> problem from the standpoint of efficiency i
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/02/2005
at 09:32 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all
>tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating?
I wouldn't be that concerned about the overhead. However, have you
looke
In the z/OS 1.7 announcement letter there's an IBM statement of direction
concerning software tape encryption (crypto hardware assisted, of course, if
available on your system). I would read that statement very carefully.
(It's on page 1, so it's important.) It does have an availability date
Joel wrote on 03/08/2005 12:32:05 PM:
> Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all
> tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating? The obvious
> problem from the standpoint of efficiency is that good encryption of the
> data, which destroys apparent patterns i
> It would seem like the best place to perform encryption if you really
> needed it for most tapes is at the tape subsystem level, so you can
> also let the tape hardware compression do its thing. Has IBM or
> anyone else yet considered putting a crypto engine in the tape
> subsystem, so both comp
On Aug 2, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all
tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating? The
obvious problem from the standpoint of efficiency is that good
encryption of the data, which destroys apparent pat
Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all
tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating? The obvious
problem from the standpoint of efficiency is that good encryption of the
data, which destroys apparent patterns in the data, will make tape
hardware compres
11 matches
Mail list logo
