Re: The official disk encryption guide seems a bit lacking (detailed list of concrete improvement suggestions!)

[tlaronde%kergis.com@localhost]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 08:49:35AM +0000, nia wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 07:57:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > I don't think we should recommend adiantum in general, and it probably
> > deserves a comment about the degree of cryptographic security it
> > provides.  It strikes me as off the beaten path and and having had much
> > less scrutiny.
> > 
> 
> Possibly. All the components have had lots of scrunity, and there
> is a mathematical proof that the construction is secure if all the
> components are secure. If that wasn't the case, I'd agree with you.

Caveat: there may be a "mathematical proof" that the construction is
secure, but this generally relies on the practical inability to
_digitally_ crack the encryption. This doesn't mean that this can not
be cracked by _analogical_ means[*]. But I gather that you are stating
the validity of a scheme vs others. In this case, it may be that it is
as secure as the others---which doesn't mean they are secure ;-)

*: there is the classical example of differential equations that we
are able to write but enable to solve but that simple bubbles "solve"
(quite improper verb; as improper as "thinking" when an A.I. search a
database to provide an answer) without ado.
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C