Re: symmetric keys
Brought to you by:
thesun
From: Shachar S. <rsy...@sh...> - 2005-08-26 08:25:41
|
Tom Metro wrote: > Although if you compared two scenarios: > > 1. keeping they keys, but throwing away the encrypted files after each > run; > > and > > 2. keeping the encrypted files, but opting not to store the keys in > external files; > > I think #2 would be a big win. In most cases, the prior version of the > encrypted file will be left untouched. Occasionally, when a file has > changed, you'll need to decrypt the meta data in order to produce a > new encrypted file, but decrypting a few kilobytes of meta data from a > known location should be reasonably quick, as CPU time for > decompression/compression is proportional to the data quantity. The keys directory will typically be a fraction the size of the encrypted files. How can you possibly compare the two? > I don't think I can, as what I'm proposing is to make an existing > required parameter, which is interleaved among other parameters, > optional. That was my thought too. > If you feel the "API" is fixed, the best I can hope for is to get your > approval for an option that would make storing symmetric keys > optional. Which I could then combine with a wrapper script to present > users with the most basic interface. Sure. I see no problem with that. Send a patch and I'm sure we'll find a way to put it in. Shachar |