Hi,
>
> intrigeri:
> the message that "plugging one's Tails
> device in an untrusted OS is dangerous" >
I respect this intention but struggle to see how the trust verification
functions when equipped with only a warning; trust is hard to determine,
especially up front, even if you "own" the
Hi,
Spencer wrote (25 Mar 2016 18:30:05 GMT) :
>> intrigeri:
>> Tails system partition is enough
> Will you explain a bit more about this?
I'm personally interested in conveying more clearly, to our users, the
message that "plugging one's Tails device in an untrusted OS is
dangerous" [1]. I
Hi,
intrigeri:
Tails system partition is enough
Will you explain a bit more about this?
intrigeri:
whose type is "Hidden W95 FAT32"
It seems that any format type is optional.
is it any broader?
It could check the MBR partition table for any occupied bits.
But the specific
Hi,
Austin English wrote (24 Mar 2016 22:33:18 GMT) :
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:45 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> IMO for #11137, checking the content of the Tails system partition
>> is enough, so no need to check for "hidden" partitions. But if you
>> want to:
>>
>>> I used a
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:45 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (reordered due to top-posting)
>
> Austin English wrote:
>>> I would try to help, but I don't know what you mean with "hidden
>>> partitions" exactly. Could you please clarify how this translates into
>>>
Hi,
(reordered due to top-posting)
Austin English wrote:
>> I would try to help, but I don't know what you mean with "hidden
>> partitions" exactly. Could you please clarify how this translates into
>> non-ambiguous technical concepts?
> This is for https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/11137,
This is for https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/11137, trying to any
partitions that are listed in the partition table.
I used a hidden FAT32 partition for testing:
1g.img2 206848 227327 20480 10M 1b Hidden W95 FAT32
my other thought was checking the Partition ID, unless someone
Austin English wrote (12 Mar 2016 04:58:54 GMT) :
> So, when it comes to detecting hidden partitions, is it as simple as
> doing $(fdisk -l | grep -i hidden)?
I'm afraid this is too brittle: this can return true for various
reasons even if there is no "hidden" partition, e.g. a LV whose name
So, when it comes to detecting hidden partitions, is it as simple as
doing $(fdisk -l | grep -i hidden)? I realize is a simple difference and
has no real effect, but I'm not sure how to properly detect this 'feature'.
Thanks,
Austin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature