From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:54:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l68so117513916wml.1
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.28] (218.83.broadband9.iol.cz. [90.176.83.218])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm23771661wje.21.2016.03.14.12.54.24
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
References: <20160314152130.GF21198@redhat.com>
 <56E709E2.4010004@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56E716EF.2080709@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:54:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E709E2.4010004@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Some questions/clarifications around the LUKS spec
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: dm-crypt@saout.de

On 03/14/2016 07:58 PM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:

...
> On a sidenote: When cryptsetup switched it's defaults to aes-xts it 
> stopped being compliant to the (original) LUKS specs. No doubt.
...
> Again cryptsetup gave up on the specs, as there was a severe need for 
> these changes. It really had been wise to ditch the original on disk 
> format at that time and create a new revised (sub)version of the on disk 
> format. It did not happen though and currently the reference 
> implementation is the 'de facto' specification, while the original spec 
> is only the 'de jure' specification. But then again, 'industry' and 
> 'practice' define standards, don't they? *SCNR*

Sorry? Spec is updated, it mentions XTS mode, and disk format remains still the same,
despite I did last update in 2011. (Simply because there was no need to update
it.) I'll mention more in another reply.

Cryptsetup never gave up specs, it is still compatible to the document.

Milan