On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:47 PM Victor Ivanov <vic.m.iva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 06/06/2020 21:12, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Maybe we're miscommunicating, but it seems like you're moving the > > goalposts here. > > ... > > Your original point was, "The problem here is that a leaked header > > immediately means a compromised volume." > > I believe we're on the same page and it's indeed due to miscommunication > and I suspect this is where the main point of miscommunication lies. > You're taking my statement out of context. No doubt, I most certainly > could have phrased this part better and made it clearer. It may not have > been obvious but that sentence was aimed specifically in the context > where a weak password is used or, especially, when a password has been > compromised and how being able to change said password might have little > effect. In which case the point still stands - when a password is > compromised, there is a possibility that changing said password may not > necessarily be the end of the matter as the (old) header may or may not > have been leaked too either as part of the same or a previous attack - > not necessarily involving physical access.
I think we're on the same page and just talking past each other. I didn't catch that as being the intended context, and in the scenario you describe you are of course completely correct. Thanks for bringing this point up though, as it isn't really something I'd given much thought to. -- Rich
