Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267645AbUI1Ivi (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:51:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267662AbUI1Ivi (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:51:38 -0400 Received: from gprs214-20.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.20]:12676 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267657AbUI1Iva (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:51:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:48:50 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Alan Cox , Chris Wright , Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: mlock(1) Message-ID: <20040928084850.GA18819@elf.ucw.cz> References: <41547C16.4070301@pobox.com> <20040924132247.W1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> <1096060045.10800.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20040924225900.GY3309@dualathlon.random> <1096069581.3591.23.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <20040925010759.GA3309@dualathlon.random> <1096114881.5937.18.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <20040925145315.GJ3309@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040925145315.GJ3309@dualathlon.random> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1286 Lines: 29 Hi! > > There must be some way of being able to check the password is correct > > without compromising security by encrypting static text and storing it > > at a known location! Darned if I know what it is though. > > good point! Maybe we can pick random signed chars in a 4k block and > guarantee their sum is always -123456. Would that be secure against > plaintext attack right? It's more like a checksum than a magic number, > but it should be a lot more secure than the "double" typo probability > (and this way the password will be asked only once during resume). > Generating those random numbers will not be the easiest thing though. Actually, better solution probably is to encrypt 32-bit zero. Then, you have 1:2^32 probability of accepting wrong password, still if you try to brute-force it, you'll find many possible passwords. If you are paranoid, encrypt 16-bit zero.... Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/