Re: Rude CryptoStacker Suggestion

[mlshew@dixie.com (Mark Shewmaker)]

On Mon, 14 Jun 1993, RYAN Alan Porter wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jun 1993, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
>
>I don't consider us without options, I just have yet to see a program that
>I would trust my data with.
>
>Besides, I wouldn't consider it a waste of effort even if there were such
>a system out there (which I doubt)

Well then I have doubts about your doubts:  Even I've got a few ways of
getting transparent compression or encryption on my own system (amiga),
most of them simply device drivers or some other standalone sets of code
one would then to use to mount a (virtual) partition, and there's also a
more standardized compression/encryption modular system to do the same
thing (sort of), just like you talk about later.

That's why I keep thinking that for PC's and freely distributable source
code for encrypting file systems, that by now someone *must* have already
invented the wheel.  (Although you could still invent the radial tire,
so to speak, and make the original idea more usable.)

>Anyway, thanks for the suggestion; I would be interested in any parallel
>systems which anyone might happen to stumble upon.

Seeing as you had previously said:

>The sources for bare network redirectors and block device drivers are,
>indeed, in wide supply.

I guess I really should upload some of the amiga code then, even though
a great deal of it will absolutely useless to you, (but I must admit
it would be kinda cool if pc's and amigas could both access the same
compressed/encrypted xpk files.)  If it's really just the encryption
part per se that you are missing, then they might be helpful to your
project.

I'll write up a description, plagiarizing the readme files somewhat,
and upload a few of the archives to Eric's site.  

>The more people who know how to implement good encryption, the more
>widespread other cypher code will become.

Very true.

(I'm always annoyed when I download a new "security" type program,
only to find it lets you encrypt/decrypt with any of ten proprietary
methods, numbered one through ten.  Absolutely useless.  And of course
the scums never include the source.  Grrr.)

>(Oh also, have I come off lately as being incredibly overflamesensitive,
>or are you just a very cautionary guy?  I can understand it if I have
>projected a flameshield attitude, but I'm really not that bruisable...)

"Jane, you ignorant slut." (Implied smileys for the SNL-impaired.)

Partly I'm cautionary, trying to be polite, tit for tat and all that,
but also I don't like being the 100th person whining about your project,
(especially knowing next to nothing about DOS systems), while people who
think it's a neat idea keep quiet.  Plus I overdid the cautiousness a bit.

(And I've got this pet peeve about people re-introducing obvious ideas
in sci.crypt, and similar places.)

-Mark Shewmaker