News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Playing with ZFS encryption on Linux by DCKing on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @10:09AM (#14594741)
I almost cannot wait for this. Native file system encryption will be so good, because it removes the ugly/inelegant layer of indirection with Geli or LUKS, and it allows stuff like encrypted ZFS send and receive. It allows you to switch on and off encryption dynamically. That will allow you to use services like rsync.net without having to place as much trust their internal security practices.

It's great they're taking their time, but I've been looking forward to a stable release since its announcement almost a year ago :)

Re:Playing with ZFS encryption on Linux by cmurf on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @11:24AM (#14595288)
Uncertain that it enables encrypted send and receive. It very likely decrypts to get it into the send format, and then is reencrypted on the receive side. Those are separate file systems so it's not certain that they share, or even should share, the same encryption key.

Update: Ahh well it helps to whole article before posting. Both encrypted and decrypted send/receive are possible. But this also suggests multiple keys per pool, a key per file system I guess?

Re:Playing with ZFS encryption on Linux by tcaputi on Friday June 23, 2017 @12:08PM (#14620184)
Yes, there are per filesystem / zvol keys and the raw encrypted data is sent over the wire along with the encrypted keys.
Re:Playing with ZFS encryption on Linux by AdmiralAsshat on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @11:57AM (#14595626)
The nice thing about LUKS for the end-user, however, is that it's well-supported in most Linux distros these days, and the end-user can turn it on within the graphical installer literally by checking a box, "Encrypt my Hard-drive."

When ZFS gets there, I will probably switch to it. Until then, however, I find manually partitioning volumes on the command-line to be terrifying, and I imagine I'm not alone.

Re:Playing with ZFS encryption on Linux by rexicus on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @11:28AM (#14595333)
It's a reasonable indirection, putting encryption into the file system is controversial, see NTFS for the pitfalls.