Quoting dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:51:35AM +0100, Arno Wagner wrote:If your passphrase is weak enough that a dictionary attack has a reasonable success of working (and a dictionary attack is the only thing the salt that hashalot adds helps against), then you are pretty deep in insecure territory and _need_ the hash iteration that LUKS provides, but which is missing from both plain and hashalot. ... Please do not spread unsubstantiated rumors. It is hard enough these days for non-experts to decide what crypto to trust and what not. Rumors of the kind "metadata headers offer attack vectors" make this even worse.Count me among the non-experts. I have two questions. (a) Wouldn't metadata headers incur a loss of plausible deniablity compared to plain mode, especially when an encrypted filesystem image is stored as a single file on backup media or in the backing file for a loopback device? (b) Assuming a secure passphrase, wouldn't plain mode be more secure than luks against possible vulnerabilities in the hashing algorithm that may be discovered in the future? _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
-- Regards, Michael https://skrilnetz.net
Attachment:
bin7F3SiRzhmh.bin
Description: PGP Public Key
_______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
