-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Encrypted files are not self-contained #211
Comments
Do you have an idea for a solution ? |
One option is to add the file version to the encrypted file header. |
Adding @micbar, maybe this of interest |
@karakayasemi you have/gained a lot of experiences, maybe you have an idea 😃 |
good idea, could be combined with #224. When rewritten, add to header, remove from db... |
I think this is the way to go.
The backend still needs the version field in the DB IIRC. |
@karakayasemi any news on that? |
I regulary ping that issue... 😅 |
I'm flattered by this verbatim quote of my paper. The whole text and additional improvements can be found in the whole document: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1439 |
Not all information that are relevant for verifying the integrity of the encrypted file blocks are stored within the files. The file versions are stored in the database instead. Due to this you have to backup the database in addition to the encrypted files and the key material to be able to properly decrypt the files again. This design decision can also lead to a loss of integrity when a database restore is required as the file versions within the database may not match the files on disk anymore.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: