From 1eb73ec18b317192cf84887b267228d94f5e9c5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "john.wyzer" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 21:03:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Feature suggestion. Indexing encrypted mail? --- ac/51009f85c02d0dd49ff1d86f3f50dada0ac1bc | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ac/51009f85c02d0dd49ff1d86f3f50dada0ac1bc diff --git a/ac/51009f85c02d0dd49ff1d86f3f50dada0ac1bc b/ac/51009f85c02d0dd49ff1d86f3f50dada0ac1bc new file mode 100644 index 000000000..05e47491b --- /dev/null +++ b/ac/51009f85c02d0dd49ff1d86f3f50dada0ac1bc @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49487431FC0 + for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:08:51 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0.001 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] + autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id cOhhRZ4ZPrtA for ; + Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CA7431FAF + for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from localhost ([77.12.75.61]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with + ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MHLNn-1WkYDi1cqB-00E28X; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 21:03:21 + +0200 +From: john.wyzer@gmx.de +To: Jeremy Nickurak , + David Bremner +Subject: Re: Feature suggestion. Indexing encrypted mail? +In-Reply-To: + +References: <86k3b3ybo6.fsf@someserver.somewhere> + <878urj1z3j.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> + +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 21:03:04 +0200 +Message-ID: <86ha67y4yf.fsf@someserver.somewhere> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UDP3DQJ1j8rgyGGxu6kOUsUOKE+hUouKekpazcWt/RfFkKmgFgD + thuM+XstpKWyL5En+mBHu+s/kcXAQYk348Br0/mSiRvGAN21vOD9Xwz9h5S4bbuMT/jgZ8t + +2jgyNa6If+Cy6tFrXUyYWe0sT1yaAFJkj8aExb4eHTSnC8rDclXCSgrKIBB20pzK3E84vZ + PfncMu1YSVLJFBTnH4eRg== +Cc: Notmuch Mailing List , + Daniel Kahn Gillmor +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:08:51 -0000 + +Jeremy Nickurak writes: + +> Off the top of my head, you could have an encrypted index too, which you +> can only search while able to decrypt. Certainly another level of +> complexity. +> + +But why add so much complexity? + +If a user decides that either transport security is enough or +additionally the hard disk is encrypted (why store an encrypted index on +an encrypted hard disk?), said user could just switch on an option in +the notmuch configuration that causes notmuch to ask for the password +before or while indexing new messages and to add decrypted messages to the +normal index as well. + + +The level of security would be up to the user by means of said +configuration option and those that want the convenience of searching +encrypted messages could have it. + +Personally I would argue that if an attacker has the means to access the +content of my hard disk either via the network or physically, there is +no difference between having whole disk encryption and storing an +encrypted index... + -- 2.26.2