I don't follow your response. If you're wondering whether it's OK to have predictable IVs, check:
* Rogaway's IPSEC chained CBC IV attack
* Bard's HTTPS predictable CBC IV attack
* Dai's attack on SSH
* Thai Duong and Juliano Rizzo's BEAST
... all of which are based on predictable IVs (usually: the last block of the previous message, which is taken as a synthetic IV in 1990s-era protocols). In short: no, CBC IVs must be unpredictable.
If you reuse an IV on 2 files at rest, information that both files have the same prefix leaks. If you use a counter IV, or a random IV, you got nothing -- that's the only point I'm making ivs don't have to be random in the confines of the right context
You should read about the attacks tptacek mentioned.
If IVs are predictable, it's the same impact as if you reuse the same IV, you just have to compute (m' xor IV' xor IV) instead of just m' if IV' = IV
Then in both cases you check if c' = c
* Rogaway's IPSEC chained CBC IV attack
* Bard's HTTPS predictable CBC IV attack
* Dai's attack on SSH
* Thai Duong and Juliano Rizzo's BEAST
... all of which are based on predictable IVs (usually: the last block of the previous message, which is taken as a synthetic IV in 1990s-era protocols). In short: no, CBC IVs must be unpredictable.