该系统还应支持所有基本类型<>的安全版本。 用户将通过在URL中预先确定“s”而不是“file://”来表示。 仅限一个PIN(仅限一次使用)进入任何种类的安全物体。

Implementation issues

为了实施便衣和加密的储存,我将使用基础平台上的现有功能:

• Files. These are available on all platforms (J2ME only with JSR-75, but it is mandatory for our needs). The abstract File to actual File mapping is straight except for addressing issues.
• RMS. This type of store available on J2ME (and Blackberry) platforms is convenient for Preferences and maybe Message Queues (though depending on performance or size requirements these could be implemented by means of normal files).
• SharedPreferences. This type of storage, only available on Android, would match Preferences needs.
• SQLite databases. This could be used for message queues on Android (and maybe Blackberry).

在加密方面,应当满足一些要求:

• To ease the implementation it will be carried out on read/write operations basis on streams (for files), RMS Records, SharedPreferences key-value pairs, SQLite database columns. Every underlying storage object should use the same encryption key.
• Handling of encrypted stores should be the same as the unencrypted counterpart. The only difference (from the user point of view) accessing an encrypted store would be the addressing.
• The user PIN provides access to any secure storage object, but the change of it would not require to decrypt/re-encrypt all the encrypted data.
• Cryptographic capabilities of underlying platform should be used whenever it is possible, so we would use:
  • J2ME: SATSA-CRYPTO if it is available (not mandatory) or lightweight BoncyCastle cryptographic framework for J2ME.
  • Blackberry: RIM Cryptographic API or BouncyCastle
  • Android: JCE with integraced cryptographic provider (BouncyCastle?)

My Doubts. Help Wanted Here

达到这一点 一些人怀疑,考虑到管道的局限性,解决办法会更加方便。 这些是my疑虑:

• Encryption Algorithm for data. Would AES-128 be strong and fast enough? What alternatives for such scenario would you suggest?
• Encryption Mode. I have read about the weakness of ECB encryption versus CBC, but in this case the first would have the advantage of random access to blocks, which is interesting for seek functionality on files. What type of encryption mode would you choose instead? Is stream encryption suitable for this case?
• Key generation. There could be one key generated for each storage object (file, RMS RecordStore, etc.) or just use one for all the objects of the same type. The first seems "safer", though it would require some extra space on device. In your opinion what would the trade-offs of each?
• Key storage. For this case using a standard JKS (or PKCS#12) KeyStore file could be suited to store encryption keys, but I could also define a smaller structure (encryption-transformation / key data / checksum) that could be attached to each storage store (i.e. using addition files with the same name and special extension for plain files or embedded inside other types of objects such as RMS Record Stores). What approach would you prefer? And when it comes to using a standard KeyStore with multiple-key generation (given this is your preference), would it be better to use a record-store per storage object or just a global KeyStore keeping all keys (i.e. using the URL identifier of abstract storage object as alias)?
• Master key. The use of a master key seems obvious. This key should be protected by user PIN (introduced only once) and would allow access to the rest of encryption keys (they would be encrypted by means of this master key). Changing the PIN would only require to reencrypt this key and not all the encrypted data. Where would you keep it taking into account that if this got lost all data would be no further accesible? What further considerations should I take into account?
• Platform cryptography support. Do SATSA-CRYPTO-enabled J2ME phones really take advantage of some dedicated hardware acceleration (or other advantage I have not foreseen) and would this approach be prefered (whenever possible) over just BouncyCastle implementation? For the same reason is RIM Cryptographic API worth the license cost over BouncyCastle?

欢迎任何评论、批评、进一步考虑或采取不同的做法。