Thanks for replies to this,

I'm not on current and I'm on dialup so that won't happen for a while.

The "transparent" part of TCFS sounded great, but the BSD branch is 
unsupported and not under development under BSD.

Really I'd love to see someone have a go at running TCFS under 1.6.x and 
releasing a patched tarball somewhere. Doesn't seem too difficult, but too 
difficult for me...

Someone pointed out:
http://quasar.mathstat.uottawa.ca/~selinger/ccrypt/
To me which wasn't in pkgsrc, it's a simpler approach for encrypting 
specific files or directories (not an fs, a "fixed unix crypt" which nearly 
compiles to the AES or something like that).

This is probably what I need, as I'd only want to encrypt my messages, 
maybe some of the db's etc.

What do you all think? I'll have a stab at cfs.

P.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:47:45PM +0200, poff wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been browsing/searching the lists forinfo on an encrypted fs.
> 
> TCFS seems to be a good choice, which was recommended to me a while back.
> 
> Hopwever latest release is for netbsd 1.4.2, and I just learnt there is no 
> more bsd development on TCFS.
> 
> I tried compiling but the files for syssrc were so outdated,  thwas kinda 
> ugly.
> 
> I'm not experienced enough to modify the sources to get tcfs to compile in 
> 1.6.1, and I woulod love to hear from anybody who's done this (so they can 
> post new tarballs which will work for 1.6.1)
> 
> Basically I'm your paranoid laptop user who needs security on files in case 
> of theft.
> 
> >From what I've read the gnupg option isn't what Ineed.
> 
> What about cfs, any good?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> poff@sixbit.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

-- 
poff@sixbit.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org