Hi Szczepan,
For the Storage#58 issue I can tell you that I used my Mac and the Nitrokey in an ordinary way like: Having my computer up and running and being logged in with my usual user account. Connecting the Nitrokey and immediately stopping the HID detection (keyboard) as described in the instructions for Mac. Nitrokey App v1.2 was installed already before and the Nitrokey was immediately detected and connected with the App. I can’t say exactly, when I observed the double mount for the first time, but that was not giving me a headache. I frequently mount all types of volumes, even from command line. What I can say for sure is, that I did not reboot my Mac and it didn’t go to suspend.
What I can definitely say is that ejecting the drive does not cure the remount behavior. See this example:
mbpuwe-wifi:~ uwe$ mount
/dev/disk1s1 on / (apfs, local, journaled)
devfs on /dev (devfs, local, nobrowse)
/dev/disk1s4 on /private/var/vm (apfs, local, noexec, journaled, noatime, nobrowse)
map -hosts on /net (autofs, nosuid, automounted, nobrowse)
map auto_home on /home (autofs, automounted, nobrowse)
/dev/disk2s1 on /Volumes/NITROAPP (msdos, local, nodev, nosuid, noowners)
/dev/disk3s1 on /Volumes/NITROKEY 1 (msdos, local, nodev, nosuid, noowners)
mbpuwe-wifi:~ uwe$ sudo diskutil eject disk3
Disk disk3 ejected
mbpuwe-wifi:~ uwe$ mount
/dev/disk1s1 on / (apfs, local, journaled)
devfs on /dev (devfs, local, nobrowse)
/dev/disk1s4 on /private/var/vm (apfs, local, noexec, journaled, noatime, nobrowse)
map -hosts on /net (autofs, nosuid, automounted, nobrowse)
map auto_home on /home (autofs, automounted, nobrowse)
/dev/disk2s1 on /Volumes/NITROAPP (msdos, local, nodev, nosuid, noowners)
/dev/disk3s1 on /Volumes/NITROKEY 1 (msdos, local, nodev, nosuid, noowners)
mbpuwe-wifi:~ uwe$
Topic 2:
As I describe earlier in this thread, the encrypted volume became unaccessible and was detected a flash card reader under Windows. That happened with having the encrypted volume formatted as “exFAT”. I am not familiar with the details of exFAT, but it looks like ordinary FAT16 or FAT32 volumes are more robust against the Storage#45 behavior.
BR
Uwe