Re: mlock(1)

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

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!