Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+client\-side\s+data\s+encryption\s+without\s+routine\s+access\s+to\s+private\s+key\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Tom Yates <madhatter AT teaparty DOT net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:23:17 +0000 (GMT)
Elegant, and it works. I made two keypairs (risby-sign and risby-encrypt) and put risby-sign.key and risby-encrypt.cert) into the PEM file specified in "PKI Keypair =". The fd process restarted fine,
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-03/msg00055.html (13,229 bytes)

2. [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Tom Yates <madlists AT teaparty DOT net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:39:37 +0000 (GMT)
I'm curious about encryption; specifically, encrypting the data on the client-side before the storage daemon lays it down to tape. I've read http://www.bacula.org/en/dev-manual/Data_Encryption.html,
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00493.html (14,714 bytes)

3. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Kevin Keane <subscription AT kkeane DOT com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:07:19 -0800
Hi, Disclaimer: I haven't used bacula encryption. Just read the documentation and used to teach PKI. With a PKI, you don't usually protect from physical seizure by avoiding the user of the private ke
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00496.html (17,282 bytes)

4. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:48:26 GMT
That sounds backwards to me. Shouldn't the encrypter (backup) use the public key to keep the data safe? Then only the decrypter (restore) can read the data, using the private key. The private key is
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00499.html (14,024 bytes)

5. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Landon Fuller <landonf AT bikemonkey DOT org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:24:02 -0800
That sounds backwards to me. Shouldn't the encrypter (backup) use the public key to keep the data safe? Then only the decrypter (restore) can read the data, using the private key. Right. A symmetric
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00510.html (14,820 bytes)

6. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Tom Yates <madlists AT teaparty DOT net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:44:04 +0000 (GMT)
Thanks to Martin and Landon both for confirming this. I was aware of the existence of the session key, but stupidly skated over it in my original post. I can live with that; data authentication isn't
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00511.html (14,909 bytes)

7. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:18:34 GMT
You would need to modify the source. __Martin -- Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterp
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00520.html (13,397 bytes)

8. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:26:09 GMT
Does the private key have to be the one associated with the public key? It looks like the code loads them separately, so perhaps another solution is to use two key pairs and make a pem file containi
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00521.html (14,032 bytes)

9. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Landon Fuller <landonf AT bikemonkey DOT org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:43:34 -0800
The private key is needed during backup if you use PKI Signatures. Right. Currently, enabling PKI encryption also enables signing, but the encryption implementation does not require this, and the pr
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00552.html (15,721 bytes)

10. Re: [Bacula-users] client-side data encryption without routine access to private key (score: 1)
Author: Landon Fuller <landonf AT bikemonkey DOT org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:58:05 -0800
... and signatures could still be verified. Spoke a little too soon. Signatures are written out with the x509 subjectkeyidentifier from the public key. A mismatched pair would need to have matching
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-02/msg00553.html (14,209 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu