lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:59:01 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <>
To:     Pali Rohár <>
Cc:     Andreas Bombe <>, Karel Zak <>,,,
        Andrius Štikonas <>,
        Curtis Gedak <>
Subject: Re: Linux & FAT32 label


> Based on results I would propose following unification:
> 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
>    there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
>    --> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot
>        sector. Windows XP even do not update boot sector, so label
>        stored in boot sector is incorrect after any change done by
>        Windows XP.
>        But due to compatibility with older dosfslabel, which stores
>        label only to boot sector, there is need for some fallback. Due
>        to point 1. the best seems to be to process also erased label in
>        root directory (marked with leading 0xE5) and fallback to boot
>        sector only in case label in root directory is missing.
> What do you think about it?

4. seems dangerous. Assume we have "OLD" in boot sector and "0xe5-EW" in the directory
entry. The label will change from <none> to "OLD" when the directory entry is reused by
"FOO.TXT", right? That seems surprising / dangerous.

(cesky, pictures)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists