Tails

#2 Updated by sajolida 2019-04-30 17:43:59

• Subject changed from Potential issue of legal liability to Tails project with the current design of VeraCrypt support in GNOME (simple fix) to Inconsistent "Encrypted" (vs "Encrypted?") for locked VeraCrypt volumes in GNOME Files
• Category deleted (Accessibility)
• Status changed from New to Confirmed
• Priority changed from Elevated to Low
• Type of work changed from Accounting to Code

Right, we’re marking locked VeraCrypt volumes as “Encrypted?” (and “Possibly Encrypted”) in GNOME Disks but only as “Encrypted” in GNOME Files. See screenshot in attachment. Ideally, locked VeraCrypt volumes (and random data partitions) should be labelled as “Encrypted?” everywhere.

@segfault: Is there any reason for this inconsistency?

#3 Updated by segfault 2019-05-01 18:34:28

• Assignee set to sajolida
• QA Check set to Info Needed

sajolida wrote:
> Right, we’re marking locked VeraCrypt volumes as “Encrypted?” (and “Possibly Encrypted”) in GNOME Disks but only as “Encrypted” in GNOME Files. See screenshot in attachment. Ideally, locked VeraCrypt volumes (and random data partitions) should be labelled as “Encrypted?” everywhere.
>
> @segfault: Is there any reason for this inconsistency?

The reason is that we kept the default behavior in gvfs, which is

if (udisks_id_usage == "crypto") {
  volume->name = "{SIZE} Encrypted"
}

I could create a patch to do the following instead:

if (udisks_id_usage == "crypto") {
  if (udisks_id_type == "crypto_unknown") {
    volume->name = "{SIZE} Encrypted?"
  } else {
    volume->name = "{SIZE} Encrypted"
  }
}

… if we decide that it’s worth the effort. FWIW, gvfs upstream handled our last merge requests very nicely and in a timely manner, so I’m not expecting this to be a lot of effort.

#4 Updated by sajolida 2019-05-03 11:15:58

• Assignee deleted (sajolida)
• Priority changed from Low to Normal
• QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

Wow, you already came up with a patch?!?! :)

It’s very good to know that it seems simple to fix but I don’t think that we should prioritize this outside of the process that we have for Feature #14544.

#5 Updated by sajolida 2019-05-03 11:16:11

• related to Feature #14544: Spend software developer time on smallish UX improvements added

#6 Updated by segfault 2019-07-21 12:37:03

• Assignee set to segfault

#7 Updated by segfault 2019-07-21 13:07:55

• Description updated

#8 Updated by segfault 2019-09-08 19:37:00

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
• Assignee deleted (segfault)
• Target version set to Tails_5.0
• Type of work changed from Code to Wait

The MR was merged into GVfs and released in 1.41.90. So this will be fixed in Tails 5.0. In case that we have to rebuild our custom GVfs package at some point during the 4.x cycle, I might backport the patch and include it, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort to rebuild and release a new package for this change only.