Is Fedora encryption safe?

>>55272421
what's "Fedora encryption"?

>>55272467
Encrypting your hat to make secure tips.

>>55272467
During install distro shows a box for the partition encryption.

>>55272518
i presume that's using dm-crypt, yes it's safe

>Not a pedo
>Encrypted drive
Choose one.

>>55272518
I'd guess it's DM-Crypt LUKS and it's probably fine, I'd also assume it uses aes-xts-plain64 with sha256, which is decent but it would be nice if it was sha512, also if you are autistic you'd want to make sure it was using /dev/urandom

but I have no idea

>>55272665
>Not a nudist
>You
Pick one

>>55272665
But anon, my boss will fire me if I put the company's source code on a non-encrypted disk on my laptop.

If you're using encryption, I already know you're hiding child porn.

File: what the fug.jpg (21KB, 211x246px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 211x246px

>>55272729
>>55272665

bls stop this meme, it was never funny

>>55272729
What are you going to do about it?

>>55272685
>I'd also assume it uses aes-xts-plain64 with sha256, which is decent but it would be nice if it was sha512

They just changed to sha256 in version 1.7.0, but there's pretty much no reason to use a different hash function at this point. See the section "5.20 LUKS is broken! It uses SHA-1!" of this document:
https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#5-security-aspects

The bigger problem is that it defaults to aes-xts 256 bit, which only provides 128 bits of security. That's been fine until now, but if your threat model requires keeping things secret for more than, say, 20 years, at which point a quantum computer will be able to run grovers algorithm to cut that number in half, you should probably use aes-xts 512 bit (giving 128 bits of PQ security).

>>55272636
>dm-crypt, yes it's safe

File: tumblr_fag.jpg (141KB, 433x500px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 433x500px

>Is Fedora encryption safe?

NO! the reason; ok someone invented encryption, e.g., des, aes and so on. Therefore they know how to break it. DUH!

>>55272763
I hope the feds pass laws forcing decryption or make a way to allow law enforcement only to bypass.

>>55273667
Yeah, that'll totally stop 'em... Since, you know, if the law says so, the criminals will all replace their current crypto software with the kind that can get them caught.

>>55273667
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/fbi-no-warrant-hack-computer/
im not even american or a pedophile

File: e9ced8c9-c2be-4a90-9a7c-f9c2b478d0e4..jpg (51KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 479x720px

>>55272490

>>55273840
that looks secure enough

>>55272729
I use encryption whenever I use linux just the option is available at install. I currently use windows, though, and I don't bother with it because it doesn't ask me if I want it during install. Your point is invalid. There's no reason not to use encryption when it's a default option.

>>55274825
You could set up bitlocker, it's like 2 clicks and a password.

>but muh backdoor
Sure it won't protect you from the NSA but it'll protect you from jamal if your computer gets stolen.