-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anyone else using CFS on CentOS 4.4 ? I have started using it today (unimportant stuff for now, for testing), and am wondering what are other people experiences with it. I'm using version 1.4.1, rpms kindly provided by Karan on his repository. My main concern is data loss, not security itself. From what I noticed, the strenght of CFS crypto is less than optimal. CFS right now looks like a very convenient solution. Much easier than the losetup stuff (which is a PITA). TIA, - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFwrkBpdyWzQ5b5ckRAsl1AKCbqS1vKK3d8zFq42n7GNJlb5cQkACeJXq0 rhMkV+krdNDmvSGSQAhLCuk=+OiU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 02:07 -0200, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:> CFS right now looks like a very convenient solution. Much easier than the > losetup stuff (which is a PITA).I use fuse and encfs. I like it. Have not really tried to use CFS, but have meddled with losetup but don't really like the fact that everything is in 1 BIG chunk of a file.
> Anyone else using CFS on CentOS 4.4 ? > I have started using it today (unimportant stuff for now, for testing), > and am wondering what are other people experiences with it. > > I'm using version 1.4.1, rpms kindly provided by Karan on his repository. > > My main concern is data loss, not security itself. From what I noticed, > the strenght of CFS crypto is less than optimal. > > CFS right now looks like a very convenient solution. Much easier than the > losetup stuff (which is a PITA).I have not tried TrueCrypt yet, only read about it. Maybe it would be useful as well. <http://www.truecrypt.org>