. . . we can implement the possibility for users to manually select
the size of the hidden volume but there is risk for data loss if the
user enter wrong values and VeraCrypt can not check their validity. Is
this something acceptable?
I think that would be an EXTREMELY cool feature, but of course you'd
want to wrap it in a "Are you sure you want to do this?" dialog if you
did it. But I'd love it.
having a drive >2TB formatted with FAT32 is extremely suspicious . . .
Not really, unless I'm missing something.
I just tested for container crypts, not partitions, and only up to
75 giB, because that is all I have available atm, but for me with
the gnu/linux 64 bit version, with either the gui or the interactive
command line methods (interactive meaning you didn't specify the
filesystem type with an option in the command) when making a plain
crypt with no hidden volume, it DEFAULTS to FAT-32. So, unless
either I've misunderstood, or it doesn't behave that way under your
conditions, I can't see that having a crypt that has the DEFAULT file
system type as being any more suspicious than having a crypt period.
Most people do stuff like this the same way they approach life -
hitting the enter key and accepting the default whenever possible. So
making it the default is probably sufficient to ensure that 90%
of the plain crypts without hidden volumes are FAT-32 just like the
Nonetheless, this is a good argument for disallowing anything BUT
FAT-32 in plain crypts, so that would ALL be the same, but I like
the idea of being able to manually select a hidden volume size a