- MACFUSE MACFUSION HOW TO
- MACFUSE MACFUSION FOR MAC OS X
- MACFUSE MACFUSION ARCHIVE
- MACFUSE MACFUSION WINDOWS
If you linked with or made modifications to it then you must have released the source code. What you were doing was a violation of the NTFS-3G licensing. You can do the later more freely but not with the former. Szaka, if you want to discuss this further, just send me an email.įor one, I don't quite know the effect of linking to a GPL library versus an LGPL library. For one, I don't quite know the effect of linking to a GPL library versus an LGPL library. Licensing is a complicated issue that I don't fully understand (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer). Mostly, I want to make it easy for a company like Apple or Parallels to use the bundle if it suits their needs.
MACFUSE MACFUSION HOW TO
However, once WWDC is over, it shouldn't be long before I have an answer from them.Īlso, I haven't decided how to license the code I've written, but I've been leaning towards a BSD-style license. Unfortunately, the people that need to "sign off" on it (essentially, just see what I'm doing and say "OK") are extremely busy this week and next. My new tools actually link to ntfs-3g, but I can't release them because I haven't yet gotten clearance from my employer. The previous iterations were based around a shell script, but it was woefully inaccurate in some cases. I've still been working on it in my spare time, and the result is several scripts for Xcode and a slew of C code. I will if/when my employer gives me the go-ahead in fact, distributing it from the NTFS-3G site would probably be good.
MACFUSE MACFUSION FOR MAC OS X
Recently we also created a new forum for Mac OS X users: So, there's my use case - I hope you'll agree that FS-level encryption is not an appropriate option, and that the disadvantages of using file-level encryption are not applicable here.Why don't you publish your contribution open source, distribution unrestricted just like the NTFS-3G project and its Fink and MacPorts ports do? -) would happily integrate and publish your contribution and give write access to the development source repository. I'll be poring through the source in the next week or so to make sure there are no dumb implementation decisions, but so far it's the most promising viable candidate out there.
MACFUSE MACFUSION WINDOWS
It provides transparent file-level encryption via WebDAV and, aside from a caching issue in Windows (which I don't use), appears to meet my requirements. Having two - possibly three - of the layers remain stagnant for so long was (and is) a big concern.Įnter SecurStick, which is what I found late last night. The EncFS solution, while it worked, was a bit of a kludge: EncFS over MacFuse managed by MacFusion, and a problem with any one of those layers caused the whole thing to blow up. As to the keys, a single key provides - in some cases - a way to do known plaintext attacks, but there's little else even a moderately-skilled attacker can do. Yes, they leak information about file size and heirarchy, but that's "OK" for this use case. I use dropbox concurrently across three machines and must have access to the encrypted information at any time on all of them.ĮncFS and other file-level encryption options do not have that limitation. Many people have used TrueCrypt or FileVault to encrypt files in their dropbox, but the huge disadvantage is that because TC and FV are filesystem-level encryptors, they have to be unmounted in one place before they can be mounted in another. While they claim to encrypt your files and not to have access to the keys, I want more assurance that my files are secure from most but my eyes. Response by poster: I'll state my use case and then mark this as "best answer" because I found what I was looking for.ĭropbox does not have a facility for performing user-based encryption.
Posted by knz at 12:12 AM on June 14, 2010 Would you want all these files to be encrypted? (With which key?) In many of these cases case, you end up with multiple versions of the file with similar content but the same encryption key, which again greatly weakens cryptographic strength.Īlso unless you waste space file-level encryption leaks information about file size.
MACFUSE MACFUSION ARCHIVE
Also Time Machine could kick in and archive multiple versions of your files. bak, then writing the new content to a new file. Then many applications will perform a save cycles by first renaming a file to. One key per file, and you quickly have hundreds of keys to manage. Think about key management for instance: which key do you plan to use? Choose one key for all files, and your cryptographic strength is weakened. Maybe you want to start by stating your use case (motive) so we can understand your needs better.įile-level encryption seems fishy because it has known conceptual issues that block-level or device-level encryption are intended to solve.
0 kommentar(er)
