transferring large encrypted images.

[Xen]

Selva Nair <selva.nair at gmail.com> schreef:

> If the backup is from an encrypted volume to another, depending on the
> scheme used, you could arrange rsync to see only decrypted data (with the
> transport protected by, say, ssh): for example, both destination and source
> using eCryptfs could have the decrypted volumes mounted during the backup.

Hmmm, I know, but it would be like mounting the image within for  
instance a block container (I would create a block container the size  
of my quotum, and hope I can run LUKS or TrueCrypt there).

Then you mount that container and then store the images/volume in  
there, and that then effectively is the volume's encryption. But I do  
not like that scheme. The image itself is already a form of a block  
container.

Mounting it would be pointless (it is not really a file-level  
container, more like block-level).

> But this may not be necessary: Directly backing up an encrypted volume
> could still make use of rsync's delta algorithm:.in case of eCryptfs, for
> example, data is encrypted in blocks of page_size (e.g., 4kB), so only a
> few blocks may change during updates and subsequent rsync runs could be
> almost as efficient as on unencrypted volumes -- I haven't tested this
> though.

That's what I mentioned. It depends on whether the encryption  
algorithm "randomizes" the encryption runs to make them different each  
time, or not. Because if they are the same, you could use --rsyncable  
on gzip and then what you say would be correct. But in practice, thus  
far (I haven't tested it extensively with what I'm currently using)  
you get a different encryption each run, which means all the blocks  
are different.

> If encryption is only to protect the data during transport, you can simply
> use ssh transport with rsync.

Ya but it is more for remote storage (and even local storage, there  
are different levels of "having to give up your passwords" and you may  
have to give up one (your first) but you may still be in the position  
to keep your seconds or thirds.

I have had a scheme where I had at least 3 different sets of passwords  
and I can at my own leisure, so to speak, hand over the first when I  
feel like it, and they will see an almost empty system except that all  
normal applications are there -- just no email etc. Then, there is  
another password and it only reveals non--offensive stuff. I mean,  
what to call it. Non-controversial.

So when they get the second password they see only stuff that is not  
very important. And then the 3rd password is even a hidden partition.  
Stuff like that. I only forgot the password to the outer volume :P.

lol :(.

> If the idea is to protect the data at a remote backup destination, say on
> the cloud, rsync may not be the best option. For that I prefer duplicity
> which uses the rsync algorithm to transfer only deltas (uses librsync) but
> stores the backup as tar archives encrypted by GnuPG (both the initial full
> backup as well as incremental deltas). You lose the advantage of a mirror
> archive that rsync can maintain.

So duplicity is a full solution. Meaning, probably, that it transfers  
the data unencrypted or temporarily-encrypted, and then encrypts it at  
the remote host with the given solution? All of these schemes require  
some process running at the remote host.

This is also a (part) Windows solution I need. That is to say, either  
the software encrypts the image, or I do it myself. You can do a cat  
over ssh but that obviates the ability to have incremental stuff,  
probably, unless you devise it really well. You could then encrypt it  
remotely as it is received, but that is not really what you want  
either. I mean partial transfers, or retranfers, or continuation of  
tranfers. The only real solution for what I want is to have a delta on  
the encrypted blocks.

So given that that is not possible, you delta the unencrypted file but  
encrypt it remotely. However, that doesn't work with the solution I'm  
using. It would also imply you directly store the file remotely, not  
storing it locally first.  All impossible, to day.

You probably cannot even mount a block device / file unless you are root.

So yeah, I don't know yet. Thanks for the thought though, I will think  
about it.

Thanks, B.