On 2025/09/22 16:34, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> This thread previously diverted to a general discussion about vnd encryption,
> and I didn't look closely at the actual diff that was attached...
> 
> But having taken a closer look now, how exactly is this ever supposed to work?

because the AI says it does?

> Apart from the fact that the diff has tabs replaced with spaces, it doesn't
> even compile when that is fixed, due to very basic C errors, (for example it
> removes the declaration of 'bsize' as an int, but continues to reference that
> variable).
> 
> I found the referenced post to -tech from back in 2006 that has the original
> proposal to move to twofish, and in that case most of what was required was
> effectively s/blf/twf/ and I can only assume that this diff was created on the
> premise that simply doing little more than s/blf/aes/ would be enough?
> 
> However, more worrying is the fact that within all of this confusion, the code
> that initialises the IV based on the block number is being subtly removed:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:50:32PM +0000, Filip Cernoch wrote:
> > -       for (i = 0; i < size/bsize; i++) {
> > -               memset(iv, 0, sizeof(iv));
> > -               memcpy(iv, &off, sizeof(off));
> > -               blf_ecb_encrypt(sc->sc_keyctx, iv, sizeof(iv));
> > +       for (i = 0; i < size/bsize; i++) { 
> > +               AES_Encrypt_ECB(sc->sc_keyctx, addr, daddr, bsize);     
> 
> Why?  This would cause identical plaintexts written to different disk blocks
> to encrypt to the same ciphertext.
> 
> What exactly was the thinking behind all this?
>