On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:22:12AM +0530, Kamal R Prasad wrote:
> 
> The co. where I used to work -had something different on mind (besides 
> protecting users from each other's data). They were supplying PCs 
> *without* custom hardware and lots of code in the user-space. They did not 
> want someone else to pirate the binaries -but wanted the data on the box 
> available for general use. so cgd would not have served the purpose, but a 
> crypto filesystem would have. but IMHO - layering of filesystems is a 
> costly implementation in terms of performance degradation.

That doesn't make any sense at all.  How would a cryptographic filesystem
have helped any more than simply changing the permissions on the
binaries so that they were executable but not readable?

The thing to understand about cryptographic filesystems is that, really,
they can be just like much other misapplied cryptography: it is not always 
better to tart up what you are doing with fancy and expensive mathematics 
when the actual guarantee obtained is no more than you could have using 
simple and efficient logic.

Thor