Linux backup software .. that meets unique requirements

[darose-prQxUZoa2zOsTnJN9+BGXg at public.gmane.org (David Rosenstrauch)]

On 03/18/2010 08:35 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> I'm sounding like a broken record, but rsynccrypto was designed
> specifically to address the con you list. It uses rsync friendly
> compression and encryption. You're effectively trying to reinvent what
> it was designed to do, and your approach may be less optimal. (Though I
> don't know. I'd recommend benchmarking both. If you do, let us know how
> they compare.)

> (Keep in mind that any encryption scheme that is rsync friendly is
> inherently weaker than one that isn't, but the practical difference may
> be negligible for typical users. Same can be said for the compression.)

Saw you make that point earlier, and sorry I didn't address it.

Frankly, I think it's probably better that I don't use rsynccrypto. 
First off, as you noted, the encryption scheme is weaker.  Secondly, I 
have a lot less confidence in a library that runs a "tweaked" version of 
a major encryption scheme.  It's very easy to get something like that 
wrong and make the encryption able to be compromised.  And finally, I'd 
much rather rely on the encryption in a very popular, well-used, and 
well-reviewed library like openssl (which encfs relies on) than on 
something far less popular and less reviewed like rsynccrypto.

Thanks,

DR