On 19/09/12 06:15, Two Spirit wrote: > I'm interested in knowing what are some of the trade offs of using the LUKS > header v not using the LUKS header.Since I assume the content of the > encrypted data is secure, it doesn't matter if someone knows the data is > encrypted and has a header and the header only helps in recovery, so I'm > not quite seeing what would be an advantage of not using LUKS, but from the > email below, there seems to be some reason. > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Arno Wagner <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0400, Stayvoid wrote: >>> Hello there, >>> >>> Let's move back to the initial questions... >>> >>> I'd like to use a plain version of dm-crypt because it doesn't >>> store a header on a disk. (Yes, I know that LUKS is a recommended >>> way, but I've already made my choice.) >> >> That is fine. I am doing the same in some places. >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt Please check tha FAQ's _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
