|
|
|
|
|
by Freaky
3926 days ago
|
|
> I've used CrashPlan a lot and basically take it on faith that it's secure They use Blowfish. Says it all really - their default encryption is a long-obsolete 64-bit block cipher you might have picked in 1999 because it was faster than 3DES. I can only assume they do this because migrating would cost them money, and being able to advertise "448 bit encryption" actually sounds like a plus to most people and not the glaring red flag it actually is. > it seems like their software is still first rate What, like their backup client that can't actually do restores? It's still all "log in to our website and let us decrypt your data for you" :/ |
|
Not defending it, because I know it's old and there are weaknesses, but aren't Blowfish and 3DES both still technically secure? This is a genuine question. It was my understanding that if implemented correctly, with a random key etc., that neither has been formally broken. 3DES is 2^112 no? which is still not practically accessible by brute force. Not that this means anyone should use them, of course, AES is a standard for a reason...
As you say, I had just assumed the migration cost was too high to move to something newer, but I don't think it necessarily means data stored there is unsafe?