From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 27 20:41:28 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911391065673 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:41:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC368FC0A for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6RKfHld001916; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:41:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q6RKOeMM001830; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:24:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:24:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Fabian Keil In-Reply-To: <20120727182654.339ca39a@fabiankeil.de> Message-ID: References: <201207260052.q6Q0qdss086796@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120726031450.5c06dd61@gumby.homeunix.com> <20120727153612.1e69d8ec@gumby.homeunix.com> <20120727182654.339ca39a@fabiankeil.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: geli - selecting cipher X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:41:28 -0000 > Saying that geli's CBC implementation "is good enough" for someone > seems to imply that it's somehow worse than XTS in general. Could you true. i still don't really understand the difference. I don't need actually anything other that inability to read data from my disk for a potential thief. > The rationale of the change isn't clear to me either. > Until recently I wasn't aware of the performance impact, though. It is huge 5-8 times depending if you have hardware acceleration or not. AES-CBC is fast enough so encrypting SSD drives make sense.