On 2012-12-22 21:26:28, Sworddragon wrote:
> The faq http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs-faq.html#filename-enc
> still says that there is no filename encryption. Since this feature is
> already implemented somebody should update the faq to avoid confusing.
Fixed - thanks!
--
You received th
The faq http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs-faq.html#filename-enc
still says that there is no filename encryption. Since this feature is
already implemented somebody should update the faq to avoid confusing.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
** Changed in: ecryptfs
Importance: Unknown => Critical
** Changed in: ecryptfs
Status: Unknown => Fix Released
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subsc
This bug was fixed in the package ecryptfs-utils - 69-0ubuntu1
---
ecryptfs-utils (69-0ubuntu1) jaunty; urgency=low
* New upstream release, dropped all patches (included upstream)
* This release includes support for filename encryption (LP: #264977)
* This release promotes keyut
Added a screenshot of .Private and Private not mounted.
** Attachment added: "Screenshot.png"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/19852172/Screenshot.png
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
The kernel patches required to solve this problem were accepted by
Andrew Morton into the Linux -mm experimental tree. They're going to
bake there for a little while and hopefully be merged by Linus into a
stable Linux kernel release soon. At which point, we will ask the
Ubuntu kernel team to bum
Would a solution to this (I'd assume an implementation of a "one-user
crypted directory" like mentioned above) also encrypt directory names,
and directory structures? The organization and names of folders could be
stored inside a single encrypted file (that could even look no different
than other f
For network-shared drives I understand the need of maintaining clean
filenames (or at least use the same key for encrypt them) to avoid
collisions.
But for user directories, there will be only one key, the key of the
user, so that one can be used for encrypt filenames. encfs does this.
It could b
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Sebastian Abate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about an option to use an encrypted filesystem image, instead of a
> directory? Then the image could be loop mounted on the ./Private
> directory, just like TrueCript does. I know this is only practical for a
> priv
What about an option to use an encrypted filesystem image, instead of a
directory? Then the image could be loop mounted on the ./Private
directory, just like TrueCript does. I know this is only practical for a
private directory, and not in a shared one, but the option could help
mitigate this situa
** Changed in: ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Triaged
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
u
Your concerns are noted, and the upstream ecryptfs kernel developers
are working on it. They have working prototypes, and are submitting
to -mm as soon as possible. We absolutely understand, respect, and
desire the additional security that will bring.
I disagree with your points that this should
I understand that there are challenges to implementing encryption of the
file names, but as it stands now I would describe these tools as
unreleasable. I encourage the maintainers to withdraw this package from
the distribution until this glaring design defect can be corrected.
An encrypted directo
Yikes, just noticed this. I think Ubuntu should warn the user about this
behaviour and maybe explain it in release notes and also on
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EncryptedPrivateDirectory
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notifica
one suggestion for developers of this:
you may simply gzip files, encrypt gzip,
then unzip upon mount...
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
The upstream feature request tracker URL is:
*
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1618003&group_id=133988&atid=728802
:-Dustin
--
Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264977
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
Please see the upstream eCryptfs FAQ:
* http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs-faq.html#filename-enc
In brief, there are some complex problems with filename encryption,
however, it is a known feature-request, and a the upstream authors
plan to implement it at some point.
Quoting here:
Q. Wha
** Summary changed:
- items private directory is visible in ~/.Private even when not mounted
+ Filenames in ~/.Private are not encrypted
** Description changed:
- i floowed commands on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EncryptedPrivateDirectory
- to create a private dir.
+ As Per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/
18 matches
Mail list logo
