On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:58:01 +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +0200, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > Hi, > > > I'm using the full crypto-API (with all the ciphers; AES being a rather > > weaker one than Serpent, for example...). > > Serpent is distributed in the ciphers package of loop-AES. > It is an extra download but no hassle compile. > Btw some recent cryptoanalysis suggests AES is actually less > susceptible to a certain type of attack then Serpent so it > is far from easy which one is weaker. Still no immediate > threat.
Actually, this is not quite exact. It is true that more cryptoanalyis was done on Serpent (which algorythm is easier to analyse). But so far more rounds have been broken in AES (Rinjdael) than in Serpent (unless I missed one of the lastest articles about thos algorythms, which is possible). The reason why Rinjdael was choosen as the AES instead of Serpent is unclear and even highly suspicious to me... It is admitedly a little faster than Serpent, but was pointed out as less secure than Serpent too (and as it was not as much crypto-analyzed as Serpent, one may find a shortcut attack on day or another...). My thought is that the NSA is probably quite interested in having an AES algorythm which is not too difficult to break... I personally use Serpent with 256 bits keys for the encrypted partitions on my PCs. It's of course probably too slow for the Q60 though (128 bits keys seem more reasonable for a poor 68060 @ 66MHz to deal with...). > > > What is the advantage of SuperMount over autofs? > > > > It's 100% automatic, doesn't need for any demon, and it doesn't hog the > > processor/drives by checking every few seconds that a new medium was > > inserted... As soon as an access is requested to a supermounted medium, > > then a check for changed/absent medium is made transparently for the user. > > It's the standard 'automounter' for Mandrake and I just love it. :-) > > appart of the extra demon this sound really very much like what autofs > does for me. How does it work to release a medium, eg CD or floppy? With > autofs I have to wait until it timeouts. No wait with SuperMount. It's just like if you were using the medium under DOS/Windoze (Yuck !), or SMSQ/E... It's 100% kernel based and done at the driver level... The problem is that its author doesn't maintain it anymore and all the maintnance is now done by the Mandrake developers, and scattered in numerous patches to each kernel... There are times were you just can't find a proper (set of) patch(es) applying cleanly to a given kernel... Well, I could make one out of Mandrake's patches for Linux-vanilla v2.4.21 and I use it since v2.4.21 is out without a single problem. I'll put the patch on my q60linux website. ;-) > How do you configure it? It's like a filesystem driver. You configure it in fstab, example: /mnt/dos/a /mnt/dos/a supermount fs=vfat,dev=/dev/fd0 0 0 /mnt/cdrom /mnt/cdrom supermount fs=iso9660,dev=/dev/cdrom 0 0 More option can be passed to the underlying driver. A doc short is supplied in the patch and appears in the patched Linux sources tree as: Documentation/filesystems/supermount.txt > > Hmm... Strange... Mandrake's patched version of gcc v3.2.2 doesn't > > got this problem on i586 Linux... Perhaps would it be worth rebuilding > > the Mandrake gcc package for Linux-Q60 ? > > probably not, the problem is m68k specific afaics and Mandrake gets > much less non-x86 testing than RedHat or Debian does. Mandrake doesn't develope at all for the m68k architecture, alas... > I looked deeper into it, it is the assignment to error.all which > barfs the compiler. Translated to RTL this assignment is apparently > too complicated for the register life analysis to grok and it won't > set a REG_DEAD note to error.all where it should.. somewhere the > strict_low_part is in the way. > > As a workaround try to declare > char xerr > assign to xerr and return xerr. I patched the sources and I'm trying to compile them as I write this message... Do you know if the same problem would arise with older gcc version (I was thinking to compile it with gcc-2.95.3...) ? > > If you got a file server (ftp, sftp, web) where to get them, I'd prefer > > that way (faster now that I got an ADSL link ;-)... > > well I didn't get ADSL, the sourceforge site is still available of > course. There are no SRPMS in it though... Or do I look in the wrong place ? Thierry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
