[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1109117: release-notes: cryptsetup: Document cipher and password hashing algorithm changes for plain mode



Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> cryptsetup ≥2:2.7.0~ has new default default cipher and password hashing
> algorithms for plain mode, which might break some existing setups and
> therefore should be mentioned in the release notes.  The following text
> from cryptsetup=2:2.7.0~rc0-1's NEWS entry can probably be copied
> verbatim.
> 
> --8<--------------------------------------------------------------------->8--
> 
>   Default cipher and password hashing for plain mode have respectively
>   been changed to aes-xts-plain64 and sha256 (from aes-cbc-essiv:sha256
>   resp. ripemd160).

"Resp." is a red flag.  There is no generally recognised abbreviation
for "respectively", because native speakers of English rarely use the
word, and especially never ever use it as a conjunction like this.  I
already said this in
 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070314#10
but I gather you didn't see that.  My suggested version was

  The default cipher has been changed to aes-xts-plain64 (from
  aes-cbc-essiv:sha256), and the default hash to sha256 (from
  ripemd160).

If "plain mode" is worth mentioning here, we need to explain what it
means.  Assuming I'm understanding cryptsetup(8) correctly, maybe:

  In cryptsetup's "plain" (non-LUKS) mode, the default cipher [...]

>   The new values matches what is used for LUKS, but the change does NOT
>   affect LUKS volumes.

Number agreement: the values "match" what is used for LUKS.

>   This is a backward incompatible change for plain mode when relying on
>   the defaults, which (for plain mode only) is strongly advised against.
>   For many releases the Debian wrappers found in the ‘cryptsetup’ binary
>   package have spewed a loud warning for plain devices from crypttab(5)
>   where ‘cipher=’ or ‘hash=’ are not explicitly specified.  The
>   cryptsetup(8) executable now issue such a warning as well.

The opposite number agreement error: the executable "issues" a warning.
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package


Reply to: