Slashdot Mirror


TrueCrypt 6.0 Released

ruphus13 writes "While most of the US was celebrating Independence Day, the true fellow geeks over at TrueCrypt released version 6.0 of TrueCrypt over the long weekend. The new version touts two major upgrades. 'First, TrueCrypt now performs parallel encryption and decryption operations on multi-core systems, giving you a phenomenal speedup if you have more than one processor available. Second, it now has the ability to hide an entire operating system, so even if you're forced to reveal your pre-boot password to an adversary, you can give them one that boots into a plausible decoy operating system, with your hidden operating system remaining completely undetectable.' The software has been released under the 'TrueCrypt License,' which is not OSI approved."

448 comments

  1. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    svefg cbfg

    1. Re:first by evanjfraser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats not off topic, thats kth substitution encryption!

    2. Re:first by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Replacement cipher.

      Translation table:

      b o
      c p
      e r
      f s
      g t
      i v

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    3. Re:first by mikeasu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a replacement cipher - Caesar cipher with a shift of 13.

    4. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AKA rot13.

    5. Re:first by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      A Ceasar cipher IS a replacement cipher. Just a really easy one(and an easily crackable one).

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    6. Re:first by mikeasu · · Score: 1

      Point taken - that's what I get for spapping off with my relatively new interest in cryptography. Guess I'm not ready to take on the 4th message in Kryptos just yet...

    7. Re:first by Daimanta · · Score: 0

      Well, I am also interested in crypto and the most in human doable(by hand) crypto. I have even made a more secure version(at least I think it is) of the Vigenere encryption scheme.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    8. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      svefg cbfg

      Well, I sure hope this new version fixes that scary reliance on the Caesar cipher.

    9. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      svefg cbfg

      Dude ! TrueCrypt is b0rken ! You can use rot13 to decode it !!!

    10. Re:first by jhantin · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at Solitaire aka Pontifex? Workable by hand with some plausible deniability to boot.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  2. More filesystems by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I hope that it now supports more filesystems, because mucking about with FAT on MacOS X didn't appeal to me last time.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:More filesystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It still only creates FAT file systems, but you can reformat to whatever you want afterwards. I tried it with both HFS+ and ZFS and it seemed to work fine.

    2. Re:More filesystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or you can create your own filesystem? I don't know how it works on the mac, but on windows & linux truecrypt just creates an encrypted disk which you can format with any filesystem you like. Just create the container file filesystem type 'none' and format it yourself.

    3. Re:More filesystems by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      And mucking about with Reiser[FS] doesn't seem to appeal to anyone right now.

    4. Re:More filesystems by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      And mucking about with Reiser[FS] doesn't seem to appeal to anyone right now.

      Yeah, but if you're already in trouble, you could make a deal by showing them where you hid the filesystem.

    5. Re:More filesystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you,

      Tumbleweed will be here all night.

      Try the veal.

    6. Re:More filesystems by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tumbleweed will be here all night.

      All too true...

  3. Local admin rights on Windows by millwall · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I work as a consultant and often use Truecrypt on my USB key in traveller mode on sites where I work. The top thing on my wishlist is to be able to run/install Truecrypt on a Windows machine without admin rights.

    The issue is described in full here:

    [..] In Windows, a user who does not have administrator privileges can use TrueCrypt, but only after a system administrator installs TrueCrypt on the system. [...]

    Full release notes can be found here.

    1. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't mind exposing your secrets to a machine you don't have control over (and thus should not trust)? I don't recommend it.

      You should copy the files that you don't mind exposing, to the unencrypted partition of the USB key or a different no crypto USB drive.

      --
    2. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I work as a consultant and often use Truecrypt on my USB key in traveller mode on sites where I work. The top thing on my wishlist is to be able to run/install Truecrypt on a Windows machine without admin rights.

      I'm surprised no one has come up with a stand-alone gui 'archive utility' for truecrypt volumes that works like winzip and the like - just treat the encrypted volume as one big archive file. It would probably have to be limited to FAT filesystems, but I suppose that would be OK for most USB applications.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I wouldn't mind a standalone "Winzip-esque" file manager, for use on machines that don't have TrueCrypt installed. The main reason I'd use TrueCrypt is just in case I lost one of my USB drives, rather than keeping anything majorly secret on it.

      If there's unencrypted remnants on the host PC then that's not too much of an issue for me, but if I lost one of the drives then I'd rather someone had to erase it to use it than being able to see all my stuff in unencrypted form.

    4. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't mind exposing your secrets to a machine you don't have control over (and thus should not trust)? I don't recommend it.

      You should copy the files that you don't mind exposing, to the unencrypted partition of the USB key or a different no crypto USB drive.

      Obviously his specific use for truecrypt is to protect data in transit, should he lose the USB drive.
      I think that's a very common scenario.
      Your 'solution' completely negates the value of that use of truecrypt.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I work as a consultant and often use Truecrypt on my USB key in traveller mode on sites where I work. The top thing on my wishlist is to be able to run/install Truecrypt on a Windows machine without admin rights.

      The issue is described in full here:

      [..] In Windows, a user who does not have administrator privileges can use TrueCrypt, but only after a system administrator installs TrueCrypt on the system. [...]

      Full release notes can be found here.

      You dont need Admin rights with TCexplorer
      Ideal for USB key
      http://www.codeproject.com/KB/files/TCExplorer.aspx

    6. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't mind exposing your secrets to a machine you don't have control over (and thus should not trust)? I don't recommend it.

      I'm not the OP, but this is being sillily unreasonable.

      For instance, I don't have admin rights on the computer in my office. So maybe I don't want to trust this computer entirely. But if I'm walking back and forth with my USB key most days, the major threat is me leaving the key sitting on the bus seat or something like that, not information being stolen while I'm on the work computer.

      It's not like just because you don't control a computer you don't trust it at all, or that just because something is in a TrueCrypt volume it's extremely sensitive.

    7. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by millwall · · Score: 1

      You dont need Admin rights with TCexplorer Ideal for USB key

      I think you hit the nail on the head with your link to TCexplorer. Just what I was looking for indeed:

      "A portable software to import, export, delete, rename, view, edit and execute files in TrueCrypt containers without requiring administrative privileges."

      Would be even better if a similar tool was integrated into Truecrypt natively, but until that happens I will try this tool.

    8. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for the same thing on Linux. It would be specially useful in my case, where the file system of my university is managed from a central server (which is in charge of backing up and whatnot), and we do not have root access to our clients.

      It would be really useful being able to use truecrypt without having to install it in Linux.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Atti+K. · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not possible IMHO, because truecrypt loads a kernel mode driver (truecrypt.sys), what a nonadmin user can't do on Windows.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    10. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Atti+K. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For instance, I don't have admin rights on the computer in my office. So maybe I don't want to trust this computer entirely.

      I do have admin rights to my computer at the office, but I don't trust it 100%. Why? Because any network admin in the company also has admin rights on it. And of course it was not installed by me, and runs some of their custom stuff...

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    11. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which ironically is what the Mac OS X port suffers from as well (for some normal reasons, and for some that are nothing short of lousy development). Bottom line is that it's doable without requiring admin access on Mac OS X.

    12. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by AlterRNow · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    13. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not the OP, but this is being sillily unreasonable.

      Not necessarily. Do you consider your data safe in the hands of everyone who has admin rights to the machine? Do they keep the machine patched and secured to a level appropriate for your secrets?

      The answers to these questions depend on your threat model.

    14. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Atti+K. · · Score: 3, Informative
      Of course, I use truecrypt on it, but mostly for work stuff.

      By the way one useful feature of truecrypt on windows is "mount volumes as removable drives". Windows by default creates admin shares (C$, D$ and so on) for each fixed drive. So a network admin can just connect to \\myip\D$ to take a look at my D: drive. If I mount my truecrypt volume as, let's say E:, an E$ share is automatically created and is accessible for any user (domain or local) with admin access to my machine. If I mount my TC volume as removable, no admin share is created.

      Of course there could by other ways to access a volume on the computer, but let's not make it obvious with a new share that an additional volume is mounted.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    15. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Minupla · · Score: 1

      [i]The answers to these questions depend on your threat model.[/i]

      Sounds like this is the parents point exactly (and one I agree with). Depending on your circumstances, risks and the value of the data being protected, it may be that a reasonable analysis indicates that the admins of the computer at work are trusted enough with the information being protected (it might after all be a set of work related docs that the user is securing to and from his home office, in which case the admin of his work system already has access and is therefore not a risk.)

      It seems like it would be best if there was an option here for people who are primarily protecting against losing their keyfob and not against the systems admin.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    16. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Informative
    17. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by XNormal · · Score: 1

      I work as a consultant and often use Truecrypt on my USB key in traveller mode on sites where I work. The top thing on my wishlist is to be able to run/install Truecrypt on a Windows machine without admin rights.

      Installing a driver requires administrator access. A possible way to mount a filesystem without a driver is to create a CIFS server that listens on localhost and mount it as a network share. This would also require a user-mode implementation of the FAT filesystem.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    18. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Any chance there is something similar for Linux?
      Why does Windows guys always get the good shiny apps with GUI?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    19. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      IIRC that would be a 'container file' similar to what disk compression software did back in the MSDOS 6, Win3.1/95 days. Some USB sticks are set up that way. (Kanguru microdrive is the one our IT unfortunately forces us to use.) Unfortunately, need to execute some code to handle mounting the encrypted portion as a separate drive and doing transparent encrypt/decrypt. That requires their drivers be installed as services, which takes admin the first time. If I go from our government facility to another agency's place, and have files that can legitimately be shared, but which should be encrypted in transit (maybe something unclassified, but FOUO.) we have to go through their IT department to install the (not exactly bug-free) software on their computer. This can take some time (ticketing, software approval, install, etc.)

      now, some other companies offer 'driver-less' solutions. (actually, I just checked and Kanguru has some of these in their newer product lineup, but we have to use something FIPS 140-2 certified. I know some sites say FIPS cert pending, anyone else have it?)

    20. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shares ending in $ are hidden... it's hardly obvious when a new one is created. That said, if someone was adequately nosy (or suspicious), guessing random drive letters might still get them into your new shared volume.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    21. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ha, yes, I think I probably do!

      It never occurred to me that someone other than the Truecrypt authors might have written something, I assumed that due to the nature of the software the information required to write such a tool wouldn't be available to third parties. My mistake clearly, I may give TCExplorer a try (although being from a third party does make me slightly more wary that it could do something nasty, as I don't have the knowledge to be able to audit the code :)

      Cheers for the link!

    22. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by xalorous · · Score: 1

      An hidden share (ending in $) is hidden from other pc's browsing to your system, e.g. through \\computername. However, an admin using the compmgmt.msc or command line tools and/or scripts can view a list of all the shares on a machine very easily.

      --
      TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
    23. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If all you're doing with it is treating it as a suitcase, why not just have a PGP key at home, and a PGP key at work, and sign things back and forth? You can do it with one archive at a time, no install is required (you can run gpg from a directory on windows) and so on. Truecrypt is convenient and provides deniability, but it sounds like deniability is not the primary concern here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look into the Ironkey. No admin rights required. The only real drawback is that it is expensive (A 4GB flash drive is $149), but the extra features are worth it.

    25. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 4, Informative

      It appears that, according to the author, the latest version of TCExplorer (1.6) released on 9/29/07, did not work with the previous version of TrueCrypt (5.0). I am assuming then that it will probably not support version 6.0. Also, keep in mind that TCExplorer is just a GUI for OTFExplorer created by Josh Harris. Meaning the OTFExplorer code will have to be modified in order to update compatibility, which neither author is apparently willing to do.

      Any other coders have time to update these projects? I know I don't, but it would be a great service to the OSS community if someone could.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    26. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Applekid · · Score: 2, Informative

      but let's not make it obvious with a new share that an additional volume is mounted.

      You could give this this regkey value a try and see if it takes care of your concern. Supposedly it prevents Windows from automatically creating those shares.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    27. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by 74nova · · Score: 2, Funny

      Check my eBay store, I have a fantastic line of new lead-lined foil hats for you

      I had to say that, but in reality I suppose I work at too small a company to really comment.

      --
      use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
    28. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Any other coders have time to update these projects? I know I don't

      but you *do* have time to read slashdot...

    29. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Atti+K. · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's true. While I'm not very familiar with the SMB/CIFS protocol, my impression is that the hidden '$' shares are just hidden from the listing, and they are still transmitted to the client asking for a list of shares, at least if the client is authenticated.

      With the smbtree Samba tool, I can happily get the list of shares, including the $ ones, from an XP machine, even if I connect as a nonadmin user to the server.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    30. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Atti+K. · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot man, but I think I will just disable the sharing service when I don't need it. ;)

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    31. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 0

      not enough to RTFA though

    32. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by 74nova · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at VMware's ThinApp?

      --
      use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
    33. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Why does Windows guys always get the good shiny apps with GUI?

      Because they don't have Perl?

    34. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by khellendros1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of encryption is to make the algorithms as well-known as possible. After all, *anyone* can create encryption strong enough that they don't know how to break it. What you want is to have the smartest possible people looking at your code, to make sure someone above you hasn't found something sneaky that you didn't think of.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    35. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Nutria · · Score: 1

      the major threat is me leaving the key sitting on the bus seat or something like that,

      Hang it around your neck? Don't take it out of your pocket until you get to your destination cubicle?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    36. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Vicarius · · Score: 1
      You can disable Windows file sharing on per-folder basis.

      1. create file named "desktop.ini"
      2. put this inside:

      [.ShellClassInfo]
      Sharing=0

      You can also use "NoSharing=1" instead of "Sharing=0"
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc144102(VS.85).aspx

    37. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Are you just wanting to protect the data until it gets to the windows box ?
      If so:
      1. How about a bootable linux usb with a truecrypt partition? Boot from the USB stick(or cdrom if the windows box doesn't support usb booting)
      2. extract the hidden data from truecrypt and put it 'in the open' on the linuxy partition.
      3. reboot the windows box and copy the data from the linuxy partition
      4. ?????
      5. Profit!
      (6. Windows box pwned by entire intarwebs)

      Apologies if i am missing the entire point.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    38. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by ponnamp · · Score: 1

      Alternate product you could use without admin rights is Iron key - https://www.ironkey.com/ I've read / heard some good reviews about this product though never used it myself.

    39. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Ok... so it'd really only thwart the dumb or incompetent admins. That leaves the other 0.01% to worry about... :/

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    40. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone finally is talking sense here. Truecrypt is not the only solution out there. Using PGP keys is a great alternative.

      Heck ZipGenius compression utility has an encryption option too. Don't fry me with comments abouts how secure it is, because I don't know.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    41. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by D3viL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shares ending with $ aren't shown when browsing \\computername from a windows PC. Other methods of looking at shares such as using konqueror are quite happy to show you anything shared regardless of if there is a $ at the end. Remember kids security by obscurity is useless especially when you rely on the client to provide your obscurity not the server. Samba gets this right with the browsable = no directive, alhtough it also supports this fake "please pretend I didn't tell you about this share" behavior if you end a share name with a $ too. (bug for bug compatibility ftw!!!)

    42. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      What self-respecting Windows user doesn't create a custom nLite slipstream with at least this tweak applied?

    43. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by julesh · · Score: 1

      Obviously his specific use for truecrypt is to protect data in transit, should he lose the USB drive.
      I think that's a very common scenario.
      Your 'solution' completely negates the value of that use of truecrypt.

      That specific scenario is best dealt with using an encrypted archive file which can be decrypted with user-mode software on the PC he wants to use the files on. Using a system that requires a driver installed on the PC is unnecessarily complex, and is asking for compatibility issues.

    44. Re:Local admin rights on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can allow you to boot from USB then you can put a lightweight Linux with the truecrypt sw and NTFS support on your key (as well as your encrypted volume). Then boot from your USB key and open the volume and copy the data to the PC hard disk.

      If you are still afraid someone might tamper with the Linux system in the USB, put the Linux in a CD (which will never change), and use the USB key for the encrypted volume.

  4. Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this crypto stuff only works well if it's part of the default install and config.

    Otherwise users get exposed to "rubberhose cryptography".

    Basically if all users even Joe Sixpack get an encrypted partition by default, then people using crypto will be safe - they have plausible deniability.

    --
    1. Re:Only works if it's default install by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, but Truecrypt has a defence against that. It is called "hidden volumes". Basically, you create a container, use it for porn or financial records (something that you have a legitimate reason to want to hide, from the wife or identities thieves for example), something that you access often. Then you create a hidden volume that is put at the end of that volume, which to access requires a second password.

      There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords.

      If you access the first volume without both passwords, then you can just wipe over whatever information you have stored in the hidden volume.

      Oh yeah, I love TrueCrypt. It's groovy.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:Only works if it's default install by eiapoce · · Score: 4, Funny

      ;) That is to say that you carelessly watch and upload too much porn without both password and you loose all those important TPS reports....

    3. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The answer is hidden partition + shemale porn.

      Give out the key to the shemale porn partition. No one would blame you for keeping that under encryption...unless of course, you are in a country where having shemale porn is punishable by death.If you have a girl friend (big if) take some semi nude photos of you and her. Very private stuff. Reasonable to keep encrypted..

      and so on.

      It's simply a matter of coming up with a good excuse in advance and preparing for it.

      If you *really* are worried about a prison/torture/interrogation situation, just add layers. Like a terrorist who expects to be tortured for information, make up several plausible stories with lots of detail.

      Initially, while you still have your strength you hand out layer after layer of well rehearsed bullshit. When you break, if the internal consistency is good enough the interrogators will have serious trouble determining if you have broken and is now telling the truth, or if you have broken, and is telling them what they want to hear.. or you may not have broken and is feeding another layer of bullshit.

      The drawback of this approach is that you will be tortured even more, but your secrets can remain obscured if not hidden.

    4. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get a clue.

      Does Joe Sixpack's computer come with Truecrypt? Does it come with a truecrypt container preinstalled?

      The answer is NO.

      So if the wrong people find Truecrypt on your computer guess what happens to you. If you say "Nothing" well: "Wrong answer!". They may give up after a few days of giving you the treatment, but it still means you get the treatment.

      Whereas if everybody had truecrypt AND an encrypted partition, they could a) try to waterboard everyone, b) wait till they have more evidence.

      And that is why I reported this bug/feature request: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440

      Encryption must appear to be in _use_ by default by all users, then you get safety in numbers. When even your grandma using Ubuntu has a crypto partition, things are better for the people actually using it.

      --
    5. Re:Only works if it's default install by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Truecrypt has a defence against that. It is called "hidden volumes".

      Last I heard, you could only have one hidden volume. That significantly reduces plausible deniability, if you are interrogated they can rubber-hose you until give it up and then your interrogators will know they got it all.

      Has that changed? Does truecrypt support unlimited hidden volumes now?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Only works if it's default install by |DeN|niS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop being an idiot and read up on it. You can *not* tell. And it certainly does not show up as free space. You can *not* prove OR disprove the existence of another hidden partition. Period. "Trained to look for it", oh please.

    7. Re:Only works if it's default install by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I have no hidden volume. I use truecrypt as a simple and easy way to keep my clients personal data secure.

    8. Re:Only works if it's default install by patro · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords."

      Plausible deniability is not really working here, since it is one of TrueCrypt's main features, so if one has TC installed then it's pretty obvious he wants to hide something.

      If one installs TC by choice then he surely doesn't do it just to have it eat up some unused harddisk space.

    9. Re:Only works if it's default install by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Last I heard, you could only have one hidden volume. That significantly reduces plausible deniability, if you are interrogated they can rubber-hose you until give it up and then your interrogators will know they got it all.

      I never heard that. Reading through the documentation, it appears that any TrueCrypt volume can contain one hidden volume. Which means that your hidden volume can itself contain another hidden volume, and that can contain yet another.

      If you think your adversary will torture you a second time in order to get your first-order hidden volume, then that's fine. Put the financial stuff in the non-hidden volume, the porn in the first hidden volume, and the Evil Master Plan in the second hidden volume.

      The point is that you can have arbitrarily many layers of nesting. The enemy can never be certain he has them all, and most users probably don't even bother using a hidden volume in the first place.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:Only works if it's default install by auric_dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I followed this back to the Ubuntu bug report 148440 and see that a comment has been added https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440/comments/4 that I think says it all.

    11. Re:Only works if it's default install by Splab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Think you totally missed the point.

      You put plausible data into the encrypted volume, when they ask for your password you give it up, they access the encrypted volume and see you got porn/financial stuff/what nots you don't want others to see. What they can't see is the fact that there is another volume hidden inside this, which there is no way of knowing unless you got the second password. Waterboarding the person makes no sense since he has already given up the password giving you access to the "entire" volume.

    12. Re:Only works if it's default install by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is not really a solution for most. I suppose its great if you want to hide some criminal activity like you bookie operation you are running, but most people like me the only thing we do want to protect are old tax records, other financials, a personal journal, you get the idea. Are you saying I should produce an entire set of convincing mock financial information just through ppl off the trail. Who has time for that. What would be much more interesting is a good stenography system. I would love to be able to stash that stuff in a 4 hour video of my family reunion or something.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Only works if it's default install by apathy+maybe · · Score: 1

      Actually, I use TC all the time without hidden volumes. I have porn in one, pics of the GF in another, passwords in a third, financial in a fourth. Plus a bunch of "random number" files, which I don't actually have a password for (I forgot them, deliberately).

      I don't actually have any hidden volumes though, because I have no real need for it. Of course, if I were to ever travel to the US or some other similar country, I would create a couple and dump all my passwords and financial information in them. (Along with all my anarchist literature and bomb making instructions.)

      So yeah, I don't have hidden volumes, but I do have TC installed and I use it.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    14. Re:Only works if it's default install by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great!. Now everybody will think I have a hidden partition, because I have she-male porn. Uh I mean, never mind.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re:Only works if it's default install by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have no hidden volume. I use truecrypt as a simple and easy way to keep my clients personal data secure.

      No, I'm quite positive that you do have a hidden volume. It's where you're storing all of your terrorist secrets, and unless you reveal the password then this ballpeen hammer has a date with your fingers.

      Still don't want to talk? Maybe you just need a little more electricity.

      We'll stop when you are able to prove to the nice men who are protecting your country that you _don't_ have a hidden encrypted partition, and then they will let you go.

    16. Re:Only works if it's default install by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      I always wondered how the hidden volume-within-a-volume worked.

      Wouldn't the free space in the container volume show that there was something hidden within?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    17. Re:Only works if it's default install by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless it has a password that will *securely* wipe the hidden volume when entered, then it only has an illusion of a defence against that which is in reality no more than another example of security by obscurity.

      Worse thant that, anyone with half a clue will be working on a clone of the original drive. No point in needlessly potentially damaging evidence. So if your dealing with someone competent, and who has time on their hands to do things right, a secure erase panic password will buy you nothing.

    18. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Unless you keep backups.

      The hidden volume is stored in a 'randomised' area of the main volume that appears to be unused, as such its contents should not change over time. Comparison of the TC volume with any backups may reveal changes to the area of the file corresponding to a hidden volume, indicating its presence.

      Add to that halo data, filesystem journals, MRU lists, etc. and the chances are something on your disc will give you away.

      TrueCrypt is good enough to hide your data from most types of scrutiny, but don't expect TrueCrypt to protect you from the attentions of a computer forensics laboratory.

    19. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just change 1) in the original bug report from:

      " Have crypto tools installed by default (if the user does not select the "use of encryption is illegal in my country" checkbox)."

      to

      " Have crypto tools installed by default (if the user does not select the "don't install encryption" checkbox)."

      If the UK courts are going to jail your grandma just because she has an Ubuntu install with a container she has no key too, then I think grandma is living in the wrong country - in the old days the UK courts had the "Reasonable Man" thing, maybe now things have changed.

      I see it more as a bug in the UK law than a bug in my proposal.

      --
    20. Re:Only works if it's default install by Neeth · · Score: 1

      "I have porn in one, pics of the GF in another"

      Now I am confused.

      --
      Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
    21. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why wouldn't they interrogate you further? They can read the Truecrypt feature list for themselves.

      Already a Mr Chris Jones has an issue with my proposal because he seems to think that the UK government would waterboard users in the UK if Ubuntu has a default encrypted partition they might not have a key to.

      If Chris Jones is right that the UK Government would do such a thing, then they would be far more likely to waterboard you for voluntarily installing truecrypt, voluntarily creating a encrypted volume (or two) AND not handing over "all" passwords. Even if you don't even have a hidden volume.

      If you have a Government willing to mistreat people for using a distro that does what I propose, they would definitely mistreat people who use Truecrypt.

      So my proposal makes the most sense.

      --
    22. Re:Only works if it's default install by jeevesbond · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, there was a conversation about this last time the subject of TrueCrypt came up. Unfortunately it went mostly unnoticed, because a forensic investigator can tell if a hidden partition is present, masquerading as free space:

      A data forensic specialist will look at all these free blocks, and guess what your SCSI/IDE/FC harddrive tells them in the low level meta data how many seek misses I've had in each area of the disk. Why are you seeking around a lot in data that is "free". OH NO! I just figured out you have secret data on the drive, and I can request the court to compel you to disclose the key.

      I think you, and many other Slashdotters have 'Reiser Ego' (coined!) You see TrueCrypt as an extremely clever and infallible tool you can use to circumvent the stupidity of courts and the dunder-heads who work in computer forensics. For the most part however, these people are not stupid, and geeks are not able to avoid prosecution via their l33t h4xX0r skills.

      I fear big egos will lead many geeks to underestimate their adversaries. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :)

      --
      I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    23. Re:Only works if it's default install by SoVeryTired · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Stop being an idiot and read up on it" is not helpful criticism. This is a clear example of the elitist attitude which gives techies a bad name.

      If you actually know anything about the subject, why not share it, instead of using a cheap putdown. It's not like you even addressed the issue the GP brought up. His whole point was that a hidden volume doesn't show up as free space.

      I'd mod you down, but you might actually learn something this way.

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    24. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If Chris Jones is right, then people in the UK shouldn't be using Truecrypt either.

      "MI5 are clubbing me senseless demanding to know my password. I will say "I don't know it" and they will say "we don't believe you"."

      Same thing applies if the MI5 think you have a hidden partition when you don't.

      Worse since you voluntarily installed Truecrypt rather than something that does not support hidden partitions.

      --
    25. Re:Only works if it's default install by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stop being an idiot and read up on it. You can *not* tell. And it certainly does not show up as free space. You can *not* prove OR disprove the existence of another hidden partition.

      Actually you can disprove the existence of another hidden volume in the corner case that the visible volume is full.

      You can also eliminate the hidden volume by filling the visible one. Be interesting to see if law enforcement would be satisfied with just zeroing out the free space in your 'visible' volumes at the borders, thereby destroying your hidden one(s).

      They might not 'catch a criminal' this way, but it could be seen as 'preventative'... no point in smuggling illegal data in a hidden truecrypt volume if they routinely destroy them. They can destroy hidden volumes without knowing they are there.

    26. Re:Only works if it's default install by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Here comes the Clue Stick! Kindly assume the position...

      TrueCrypt does indeed support a "Hidden Volume" feature, and it isimpossible to tell that there is a hidden volume there without the password to decrypt the hidden volume.

      This is important for two reasons: Firstly, it means that it is impossible for an attacker to know you have a hidden volume without the password. Secondly, it is very possible to overwrite the data in the hidden volume if you are not careful.

      The way the Hidden Volume works requires a function called Volume Protection to be used. You mount the regular TC volume, and enable the Hidden Volume protection function. Failure to do this before modifying data on the TC drive will result in corrpution of data on the Hidden Volume. This enables a second level of deniability, as the attacker only needs to open a file which writes a temporary file to the TC volume without using Hidden Volume protection and the hidden volume is lost.

      This was written quickly, and no citation of documentation is given. However, look up Hidden Volume Protection in the documentation for TrueCrypt to see evidence. FYI, though, unless you enable Hidden Volume Protection, it does show up as free space. Otherwise, Mr Investigator goes "Your TC volume is 4GB, but total space is only 2GB. Bend over while I slip on this butchers mitt attached to a 50kv battery."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    27. Re:Only works if it's default install by Fepple · · Score: 1

      I think your saying that people know "truecrypt = hidden volume". So while you have plausible deniability, if your being tourtured thats not going to cut it. However, torture is obviously not the main risk of you having to turn over your password. In the UK you can now be forced by law to turn over your passwords if the encrypted data is believed to relate to terrorism, in this case "plausible deniability = win"

    28. Re:Only works if it's default install by eht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple reason why I had seeks to an area that looks empty, it's because I *used* to have files there before I deleted them, then since I'm savvy enough to use Truecrypt, I ran one of those wipe programs that overwrites it with garbage, hence what you see if you look at the drive forensically, garbage.

      I came up with that in the time it took to read your post.

    29. Re:Only works if it's default install by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have porn in one, pics of the GF in another,

      Aren't those one in the same?

      Thankfully, most people are careless with their homemade pr0n. I mean, uh, nevermind....

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    30. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But officer, I use TC without the hidden volume just to store my serial numbers, PIN numbers, passwords etc. I have no use for that other feature."

      Still plausible as long as the top volume does contain that stuff. Unless they beat the crap out of you to get the truth they would have no choice but to accept it.

      And I actually do use it that way .. officer... lol

    31. Re:Only works if it's default install by jeiler · · Score: 1

      So my proposal makes the most sense.

      New Ubuntu packages:

      1: TrueCrypt (regular install)
      2: Truecrypt Super-sekrit *depends: tin-foil-hat

      If you're that worried about rubber hose decryption, then perhaps you should stop using the computer at all. After all, tempest gear is cheaper than that particular form of brute force.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    32. Re:Only works if it's default install by richlv · · Score: 1

      steganography

      --
      Rich
    33. Re:Only works if it's default install by patro · · Score: 1

      "Still plausible as long as the top volume does contain that stuff. "

      Yes, very plausible indeed...

    34. Re:Only works if it's default install by aCC · · Score: 1

      Plausible deniability is not really working here, since it is one of TrueCrypt's main features, so if one has TC installed then it's pretty obvious he wants to hide something.

      Not really. "Plausible deniability" is one of many features and Truecrypt is by far the best free hard drive encryption software at the moment. I and the organisation that I work for have been using it for many years and only last month I tried the hidden container feature to see how it works (and found it too annoying to always input two passwords). There is simply no better software for it at the moment and if you want to protect yourself from thieves or spies then it's the best solution (IMHO).

    35. Re:Only works if it's default install by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      My company uses truecrypt on all of our notebooks. We do system encryption and encrypt all usb drives (with travelers mode). We also have truecrypt install on all desktops with containers for sensitive data. Not one of these uses a hidden container. Because of the USB keys, most of us also have truecrypt installed at home (I've been using it for a lot longer then the company and recommended it to them.) It is interesting feature, but gives us no benefit. Would they waterboard our whole company looking for hidden containers? That's a lot of people (hundreds).

    36. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur - read about the R.I.P. Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
      esp the part about having to give password or face jail.

      So with your idea anyone who did the default install would have an encrypted volume that if the police investigated they couldn't be supplied with a password as it was discarded. Great.

      Besides that imagine the propaganda coup when the police banned an entire distro as it could be used by terrorists and/or pedos without the police being able to snoop. The UK cops wouldn't have to worry about funding for a while after such an announcement - I'm sure a big donation from somewhere near Redmond would be forthcoming.

    37. Re:Only works if it's default install by v1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stop being an idiot and read up on it. You can *not* tell.

      Don't offer advice you're unwilling to take.

      Circumstances may make this very possible to identify. Allow me to provide an example and suggest some alternatives:

      Lets say you have a 100gb hard drive, and have decided to break away 15gb of that for an alternate volume. Since the OS has to be on it, it can't be very small (300mb for example) as you could do normally with an obvious encrypted disk image document. TrueCrypt choses a place somewhere within the 100gb drive to place it. Lets say it's at the 60-75gb region.

      The most plausible deniability for this would be to use the "trojan" 85gb of space for your everyday use, and only reboot into the hidden volume when you had "sensitive work" to do. This would provide many examples of consistent access to the trojan, lending it credibility as being used. If you (almost) always booted into the hidden volume, it would be an easy giveaway since files rarely got modified on the trojan, so this behavior is required.

      Unfortunately, over time data is spread around on your hard drive. All current OS's move the next available block pointer forward on the drive as it's used. (space is not used on a "closest to start of volume first" basis beause that can be extremely inefficient and lead to severe fragmentation) So eventually disk usage will run into the hidden partition.

      If you've provided your 2nd password, truecrypt will "hop" over the hidden partition to avoid damaging it. But that's the problem. If you continue to use your trojan partition, a simple look at used disk space will see a fairly even coverage mix of free and used blocks, except for one conspicuous, contiguous 15gb chunk of unused space, smack in the middle of the "only volume" on the disk. It could be very difficult to explain to someone analyzing your drive.

      ya, right. Now lets have the SECOND password please. (points gun)

      There are many ways to fix this problem which have not (as of yet) been implemented by truecrypt:

      1) instead of mounting an entire new bootable volume, simply mount a small hidden disk image. That could be 300mb or so, enough for quite a few sensitive documents. A 300mb continuous hole in the free space could be a single AVI file that got deleted a month ago. Totally inconspicuous.

      2) instead of reserving a contiguous block of 15gb, it could be cut up into many smaller random length parts. (as in, thousands of pieces of 20-200mb in size) In fact, BOTH the trojan and hidden volumes could occupy almost the exact same space except for their directory start. With both passwords provided, whether you booted into the trojan or hidden, it would consider the union of used blocks on both hidden and trojan partitions when looking for free space to allocate. This has many benefits, including breaking up suspicious free areas into small innocent pieces, and removing the restriction of the hidden partition's size. Without this, if you set aside 15gb and find you need a little more space, you'd have to reformat and it'd be a huge mess. Since both partitions "share" the free space until it's all used, by this technique you could slowly use up all 100gb of your hard drive in any combination of trojan/hidden volume you wanted to, making it much more convenient and future-proof.

      Both (1) and (2) are still vulnerable to backup analysis, although (1) would be much more difficult and certain. If you can compare the free blocks between two distant states, say a year apart, you could determine with some certainly that there are more blocks that have remained marked unused over time than should be, so "something's preventing writing to these blocks", placing suspicion on the drive.

      If you insist on continuing to use truecrypt, you'd be advised to make sure the hidden partition is near the end of the disk, and that you defragment used AND free space often, so that the scattering of newly allocated files never gets very close to your hidden partition. While inconv

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    38. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully truecrypt 7 will allow an unlimited amount of hidden partitions

    39. Re:Only works if it's default install by spintriae · · Score: 1

      You can *not* prove OR disprove the existence of another hidden partition.

      Is having passwords for both partitions not legitimate proof of the hidden one?

    40. Re:Only works if it's default install by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      We'll stop when you are able to prove to the nice men who are protecting your country that you _don't_ have a hidden encrypted partition, and then they will let you go.

      The people in a position to know that hidden volumes are possible are smart enough to know that it's also possible not to have them, and that it's mathematically impossible to disprove.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    41. Re:Only works if it's default install by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      That RIPA shit hasn't been (AFAIK) tested in the UK courts yet - when it is, it will be tossed out as the unreasonable garbage that it is.

      .

      The law can't compel me to provide the combination to my safe, and by extension my passwords are my business, not Plod's.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    42. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of using truecrypt, is not to hide your terrorist plans* duh...

      It's to hide the porn for your wife/boss, your moneytraces the IRS doesn't know of, the stuff you wish to keep private.

      When the CIA takes you to a secret facility in Afghanistan, you have other stuff (*) on it. If not, you tell them every password you have ever known.

      But if the IRS asks you the password, you don't mention the 2nd secret one ;)

    43. Re:Only works if it's default install by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Calling radomized data a partition simply is an assumption. It cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the randomized data is specifically a hidden partition. It can be a temporary file for some random program...it can be a foriegn compression scheme, it can be free space. So many other things it can be, simply calling it a hidden partition is a stretch.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    44. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Those people may also know that there are other crypto software out there that don't have the hidden volume feature, so if you are voluntarily choosing TrueCrypt, there's a significant chance that you are using the hidden volume feature.

      And so the interrogation of TrueCrypt users will go on for a lot longer than non-TrueCrypt users (who can just handover all the valid passwords and have the interrogation stop).

      Secondly if you are are sloppy and your O/S is configured to record access times or journal truecrypt data, your use of hidden partitions might be detected.

      Or if you have made a backup for your truecrypt container and they have obtained access to both the backup and the current.

      If you have made changes to the hidden partition since the backup a comparison would show them (it might even help them decrypt your data - go ask your favourite crypto guy for details)

      So be careful on how you do your backups of encrypted stuff.

      --
    45. Re:Only works if it's default install by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      in the old days the UK courts had the "Reasonable Man" thing, maybe now things have changed.

      Oh yes, things have definitely changed.

      I'm just grateful these TrueCrypt people are hard at work (even on US "Independence Day"). That smart people are doing their best to muck up the plans of the would-be tyrants of the world is comforting to me, and a fitting tribute to the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution.

      That a sizable group of smart people are here discussing the best way to muck up the aims of those tyrants also gives me hope.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re:Only works if it's default install by nine-times · · Score: 1

      So if the wrong people find Truecrypt on your computer guess what happens to you. If you say "Nothing" well: "Wrong answer!". They may give up after a few days of giving you the treatment, but it still means you get the treatment.

      Whereas if everybody had truecrypt AND an encrypted partition, they could a) try to waterboard everyone, b) wait till they have more evidence.

      Dude, what are you hiding, and who are you hiding it from? Should we all be concerned?

    47. Re:Only works if it's default install by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, as long as you're admin, you don't have to INSTALL TrueCrypt - just copy it onto a ThumbDrive, and when you need it, you run it. Hide the Thumbdrive somewhere safe (or, given that TC is on teh Internets, if you want, just download it each time you need to access the data then securely erase it). There is no way to identify a file as a TC volume so no issues there.

      If you really want to confuse them, download and install (but don't use) a competing product like BestCrypt. That way if they try to brute force it (say if you picked a poor password like "doggie" or something), they're going to start with the assumption that it's a BestCrypt volume and not a TrueCrypt one.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    48. Re:Only works if it's default install by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      I use TrueCrypt because it is the only one to my knowledge that integrate very well with the OS, portable, not cumbersome to use, free as in beer and as a bonus free as in speech (more or less). I am open to better alternatives.

    49. Re:Only works if it's default install by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I'm quite positive that you do have a hidden volume. It's where you're storing all of your terrorist secrets, and unless you reveal the password then this ballpeen hammer has a date with your fingers.

      Although you have something of a point, I think all those damned trees have blocked your view of the forest.

      Very, very few of us use TC because we fear having our fingers broken to discover our secrets. We use it to keep client data safe from accidental loss; we use it to store personal info on shared machines at work; we use it to protect our financial records on home PCs from possible compromise. We may even use it to hide some questionably legal material, but generally nothing that will cause us to vanish one night and wake up in Jordan with a date with a rusty drillbit.

      In theory, yes, I absolutely agree with you that easy-to-use encryption should come preinstalled everywhere. In practice, plausible deniability works well enough in the Western world that I simply don't care whether or not the NSA could theoretically detect whether or not I have a hidden TC volume.

    50. Re:Only works if it's default install by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, TrueCrypt stores the header for the inner encrypted partition at the 3rd block from the end in the outer partition; the remainder of the inner partition stretches backwards from the header toward the front of the disk.

      You can certainly provide evidence that you have no inner TrueCrypt volume by storing a file in your outer volume that includes the inner-volume block (and could not be recognizable to TrueCrypt as a header).

      TrueCrypt is not magic. It's good technology, but it's not magic.

    51. Re:Only works if it's default install by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So if the wrong people find Truecrypt on your computer guess what happens to you. If you say "Nothing" well: "Wrong answer!". They may give up after a few days of giving you the treatment, but it still means you get the treatment.

      The solution is to put some very slightly naughty things in a visible encrypted partition, like some dirty porn or something. Cough up the password and you've explained the partition. Now you just have to convince them that's the only encrypted partition. That should be fairly easy if they're not already looking for some data they know you have, which is probably a much likely time to apply the hose.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Only works if it's default install by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Dude, what are you hiding, and who are you hiding it from? Should we all be concerned?

      What he's hiding is that he's paranoid, and who he's hiding it from is no one. But honestly, look around you. We should all be concerned.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:Only works if it's default install by Lostlander · · Score: 1

      What I find the most interesting is why would any terrorist use an active truecrypt volume to hide his information when you could just as easily delete the truecrypt partition and recover it later. That would be true security through obscurity. If the data is deleted it can still be recovered as long as you don't write over it so while it appears as dead and truly empty space it is still recoverable. It's always easier to hide data than to find it and a sufficiently motivated terrorist is going to be able to pass any security check. In the end it's never the really determined terrorists who really get stopped at the borders just the odd crazy extremist.

    54. Re:Only works if it's default install by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      First, most computer forensic investigators are all familiar with the capabilities of TrueCrypt.

      Second, unless they've substantially changed how TrueCrypt works, it's trivial to disprove that you have a hidden volume (but must do it in advance).

    55. Re:Only works if it's default install by TheLink · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You should be concerned about using Truecrypt for plausible deniability when it should be clear that it has no plausible deniability until the day when a significant percentage of the population has Truecrypt installed WITH at least one encrypted partition that may or may not have a hidden partition.

      Otherwise if you are in a country like the UK and don't want trouble from the RIPA, you should use crypto software that has no hidden partition feature, so that you can hand over all your passwords AND they can more easily tell that you did so.

      I mean why wouldn't you hand over all your passwords? You and I have nothing to hide from our Governments right? So people like us shouldn't use TrueCrypt - the hidden partition feature is counterproductive for us.

      If you really want to keep a hidden encrypted partition, you put it on a removable drive and hide it. As it is the Truecrypt hidden partition feature is a stupid idea.

      --
    56. Re:Only works if it's default install by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They might not 'catch a criminal' this way, but it could be seen as 'preventative'... no point in smuggling illegal data in a hidden truecrypt volume if they routinely destroy them. They can destroy hidden volumes without knowing they are there.

      Law enforcement is legally required to return your equipment in the condition in which they took it. This may or may not happen, of course, but generally the data is intact. This is the easiest thing to keep intact, really; you just image it away before you start to play.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Only works if it's default install by vertinox · · Score: 1

      They might not 'catch a criminal' this way, but it could be seen as 'preventative'... no point in smuggling illegal data in a hidden truecrypt volume if they routinely destroy them. They can destroy hidden volumes without knowing they are there.

      I never got this "Smuggling illegal data" thing. If you want to transfer something across international borders, its not like you have to tape hard drives to yourself under your shirt. All you have to do is use the internet.

      If a law enforcement agency destroyed the "illegal data" in the process of looking for it, then it serves the purposes of the person hiding the data from them. If it was that important they would have made backups somewhere else.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    58. Re:Only works if it's default install by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In theory, yes, I absolutely agree with you that easy-to-use encryption should come preinstalled everywhere. In practice, plausible deniability works well enough in the Western world that I simply don't care whether or not the NSA could theoretically detect whether or not I have a hidden TC volume.

      Encryption everywhere provides for terrorists and patriots. Encryption on your computer only provides for you, and only if you are neither of the above.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:Only works if it's default install by vertinox · · Score: 1

      No, I'm quite positive that you do have a hidden volume. It's where you're storing all of your terrorist secrets, and unless you reveal the password then this ballpeen hammer has a date with your fingers.

      The smart thing to do would have a password and encryption system that makes the data unreadable if such a key was used. That way when they ask for the password, you give them one that destroys the key on the disk thereby making the data unreadable. At that point they could torture you all they'd like but the original password will never work again.

      I'm not sure how such a thing could be implemented on the hard drive itself with the encryption perhaps on the MBR in which forces you to boot from the hard drive if you want to read the information.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    60. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Think you totally missed the point.

      Not quite.

      It's true that if _every_ Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Mac OS X and XP/Vista installation appeared to use TrueCrypt, then attackers wouldn't become any more suspicious of a laptop with a TrueCrypt volume than they would one containing, say, an NTFS volume.

      Think of a pile of a dozen laptops at a border crossing. As it is today, the laptops with the encrypted volumes will really stand out--- and probably get a more focused inspection as a result. That's a situation you want to avoid, whether you have sensitive data or not. If you can avoid the rubber hose altogether, thats preferable to getting just the "lite" treatment.

      It's actually a pretty forward-thinking idea, one that might have side-effect benefits for things like secure browsing, identity protection, etc.

      Of course, you'd have to deal with TrueCrypt's licensing issues (if any, IANAL) related to those OSen first. That may be the more difficult problem than getting one or more distos to include it in their default installations.

    61. Re:Only works if it's default install by pla · · Score: 1

      Encryption on your computer only provides for you, and only if you are neither of the above.

      That doesn't even make sense, unless you believe I singlehandedly have the power to make Windows and OS-X come preinstalled with decent easy-to-use encryption.

    62. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the funny you could have gotten is simply washed away by your inability to spell simple words like LOSE.

    63. Re:Only works if it's default install by elucido · · Score: 1

      It's simple, terrorists and patriots don't rely on computers.

      Why? because anyone with more knowledge can hack your computer and steal the password to your encryption, but if you don't rely on the computer theres no way to easily break your code.

      Computers in themselves are not secure once you connect them to each other.

    64. Re:Only works if it's default install by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Think you totally missed the point.

      You put plausible data into the encrypted volume, when they ask for your password you give it up, they access the encrypted volume and see you got porn/financial stuff/what nots you don't want others to see.

      No, I think you're missing the point. Let's assume, for a moment, you're law enforcement. Now, from your perspective, encryption is a means of hiding information from the law.

      If encryption is a standard feature that everyone uses, then everyone is hiding information from the law. But, since not everyone is a criminal, that means one can't presume that encryption is equivalent to a criminal hiding criminal activity.

      If encryption is a non-standard feature that some people use, then everyone using that encryption might very well be a criminal. In fact, law enforcement very well might believe that encryption is equivalent to a criminal hiding criminal activity. In that case, giving them a second password with "incriminating information" only works if that incriminating information is itself illegal. Unless that's the plan, to trade the possibly 30 year prison sentence for the 5 year prison sentence, then the idea that you can just give a password to data "you don't want others to see" as some means of sating the law enforcement is absurd.

      In short, using encryption makes you a criminal. The very fact that you won't turn over the password for the incriminating evidence only proves to them that you're hiding even worse (ie, 30 year prison sentence worthy) data. The only way to actually counter this is to get so many people using the encryption software that the existance of encryption software isn't enough reason for the police to even bother trying to get you to hand over a password, as the encryption software isn't reason enough to to presume anything. Of course, if they have evidence that leads them to you, you're back to the position of them just assuming you're hiding the illegal data somehow.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    65. Re:Only works if it's default install by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Those people may also know that there are other crypto software out there that don't have the hidden volume feature, so if you are voluntarily choosing TrueCrypt, there's a significant chance that you are using the hidden volume feature.

      Truecrypt is the only disk encryption software I'm aware of that can handle my disks on OSX, Windows, or Linux. That's a pretty big plus if there's any chance you'll want to access that data when your system goes down.

      That said I use LUKS for my full disk, as Truecrypt doesn't offer pre-boot authentication on Linux, nor does it offer multiple keys.

      I do use a separate, small Truecrypt container for my financial data. I figure if my computer gets hacked or someone gets access to the unencrypted version of the disk, I still want to keep them from that data, but I'd also like to be able to back up my data and access it from a system that may be not running Linux.

      Point is, Truecrypt has it's advantages other than hidden volumes. I might be a little cautious that I'd be unable to prove I wasn't using a hidden volume, but I don't think it's a good assumption that using Truecrypt probably implies a hidden volume.

    66. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight.

      Outer decoy volume: Debbie Does Dallas
      Inner hidden volume: Midgets and Grannies Vol. 4?

    67. Re:Only works if it's default install by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Fancy electronics are cheaper than using a bunch of thugs you have on staff already? How do you figure?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    68. Re:Only works if it's default install by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      They might not waterboard you, but they can throw you in jail for a few years for failing to prove you don't have the key thanks to RIPA.

      Your proposal basically seems to be as useful as doing dd if=/dev/random of=/secure bs=1M count=1024 in the default install; you can't prove it's not an encrypted file, and so if everyone has a chunk of random data, people for whom that random data really is encrypted can pretend it's not because it's standard behavior (and indeed, doesn't everyone have some random data lying around they used for testing and neglected to delete?). On the other hand, people who actually do want to use crypto will probably be using full disk encryption, and so instead of having 1% of their fs locked away in a random file, the entire thing is. Your proposal does nothing to help those users; to do what you seem to want, the default install should use FDE. That would certainly be a bold move.

    69. Re:Only works if it's default install by nasor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Truecrypt has a defence against that. It is called "hidden volumes".

      This only gives certain people an incentive to keep beating you for more passwords on the (perfectly reasonable) chance that you might have more data hidden.

    70. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You put plausible data into the encrypted volume, when they ask for your password you give it up, they access the encrypted volume and see you got porn/financial stuff/what nots you don't want others to see. What they can't see is the fact that there is another volume hidden inside this, which there is no way of knowing unless you got the second password. Waterboarding the person makes no sense since he has already given up the password giving you access to the "entire" volume.

      Okay, so the second hidden volume doesn't show up as one, and something looking for standard patterns certainly won't see data in it either, but won't it look odd to have "random noise" there? Shouldn't one normally expect something that is either zero'd out or looks like old data instead? What other explanations are there for a file of noise? UHF tv channel 37 capture made while looking for messages from the home planet?
      But then you're a terrorist from space!!!

    71. Re:Only works if it's default install by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      I write crypto code every day... the very presence of a large contiguous random block of data is certainly a big "lookie here!!" in my book.

      Oh, and the fact that TrueCrypt is installed would be right up there too...

      Forensics isn't just going to look at described volume tables - oftentimes the "empty space" is most important anyway.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    72. Re:Only works if it's default install by calharding · · Score: 2, Informative

      This example relies on the notion that the government will make an assumption, and torture you based on that. You can have a hundred different encrypted volumes, each with a hundred hidden volumes, and the government can still continue assuming you have more and keep torturing you until they find what they're looking for.

      What's needed to avoid this is *complete* deniability; something which I don't think any software can offer.

      Truecrypt doesn't (and doesn't claim to) offer this complete deniability, but rather *plausible* deniability. Which is adequate to protect one from litigation and prison time in most modern countries. In most cases, this is enough.

      Good software can protect your sensitive data, but *no* software can protect you from getting tortured in this sort of hypothetical psychotic dictatorship.

      --
      Before enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack. After enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack.
    73. Re:Only works if it's default install by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Actually you can disprove the existence of another hidden volume in the corner case that the visible volume is full.

      Not without looking very closely at the data. You could conceivably map blocks from the hidden partition into files in the unhidden one; if all you're doing is looking at an encrypted directory full of porn mpg's, you're unlikely to notice a few MB of "random" data hidden away in the slack, even if you're rather tech savvy.

    74. Re:Only works if it's default install by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's good to have encryption and everything. I just think it's funny that people in here are talking about "Well what if you're being tortured?" Who here is doing something where they're likely to be tortured? Sure, that's probably a concern for some set of people, but how many of the people here are really a member of that set?

      And of course all the examples people are using are like, "Use your first volume to hide porn and your financial information, and then use another volume in that volume's free space to hide your assassination plans." Is that really how you want to portray this technology? That, if you're really a terrorist or assassin, it can help you cover your tracks?

      I don't know for sure, but I just have my doubts that most people here are really doing that sort of thing, and if they are, I don't particularly want them to get away with it. But there are valid uses for this technology.

    75. Re:Only works if it's default install by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I never got this "Smuggling illegal data" thing. If you want to transfer something across international borders, its not like you have to tape hard drives to yourself under your shirt. All you have to do is use the internet.

      Maybe you weren't paying attention to all the illegal and now seemingly legalized wiretapping? Its not too hard to envision a future where sending encrypted data that the 'gubmint' doesn't have a backdoor to across national borders will be illegal, or at least require a license.

      If a law enforcement agency destroyed the "illegal data" in the process of looking for it, then it serves the purposes of the person hiding the data from them. If it was that important they would have made backups somewhere else.

      If the person is seeking to move that data, destroying it everytime they try is highly effective. Imagine cocaine smuggling if everytime it crossed the border it was turned to dust automagically...

    76. Re:Only works if it's default install by tokul · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they interrogate you further?

      Waterboarding is illegal in democratic countries. US constitution has Fifth Amendment. User can be asked to show what is in encrypted volume and he can show it, if he or she wants to help police in investigation. If police claims that user has some hidden volume that file, they would be accusing user without having a proof.

    77. Re:Only works if it's default install by niw · · Score: 1

      Unless you keep backups.

      Which is why you backup the files *inside* the encrypted partition and encrypt the files as they go onto your backup medium. You don't backup the image the entire partition.

    78. Re:Only works if it's default install by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The people in a position to extort the contents of your hidden volume are brutal enough not to care whether you have one or not.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    79. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uk, i hardly knew ye...

      wow...and i thought the u.s. was a fascist police state...

    80. Re:Only works if it's default install by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Seems to me at the end of the day that files sizes or volume sizes would not add up, especially if you are trying to hide a whole OS. 160 GB drive? Why does it only report 80GB? Can someone explain how this fact would be hidden?

    81. Re:Only works if it's default install by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Easily defeated by disk imaging.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    82. Re:Only works if it's default install by pointsofdata · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I couldn't quite follow your line of argument.

      Using encryption does not make you a criminal in the eyes of law enforcement, unless you refuse to hand over a password when the law requires you to. There are many uses for encryption, such as (as others have suggested elsewhere in this comment section)financial records and almost anything to do with business clients/other peoples data (encryption should have been in use on the disks which were lost in the UK fairly recently).

      If you have an encrypted volume, and hand over the password to it when you are required to by law, and it does not contain anything illegal, then you have not committed a crime.

      Law enforcement has no way of knowing whether a hidden volume exists in your encrypted volume, so you have plausible deniability.

    83. Re:Only works if it's default install by jeiler · · Score: 1

      Financially, despite the suspicions of some here, "jack-booted thugs" are not cheap. They require a constant upkeep--not just when they're first used, but on a continuing basis. Can you imagine the damage that one of your enforcers could do to you if you stopped paying him?

      However, there is one form of cost that may outweigh finances--operational secrecy. If the aforementioned jack-booted thugs come to somebody's house (or several somebody's houses) in the middle of the night and people just start "disappearing," rumors are going to get out, and those with something to hide will take steps. But are you going to get suspicious if a telco truck parks down the street for a half hour, never to be seen again?

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    84. Re:Only works if it's default install by pointsofdata · · Score: 1

      Let's say you have a 500MB volume. In that you put 20MB of financial records, and 80MB of business data/pictures/other innocent but valuable stuff. All of this is put at the "front" of the volume. If you then create a 100MB hidden volume, it is placed at the "back" of the main volume. Since all of unused space in the decrypted main volume looks like random data already, the hidden volume is now invisible.

    85. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, great country you are living in. What was its motto? Land of the sheep?

    86. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      "No, you gave us the password to this hidden encrypted partition. Now give us the password for the hidden encrypted partition inside it or suffer the consequences... and for the one inside that, and the one inside that, and..."

      The whole point of a "hidden" partition is that it is invisible... you can't tell it's there. For all they know, you already gave them "all" the passwords, and if they keep fishing, they'll inevitably reach a point where you DID and even so it won't help you because "there has to be another one because there could be".

      Even the government isn't that stupid, I hope.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    87. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're doing a full image of your system, which isn't typically the case, backups don't preserve "unused" portions of the disk. There is, therefore, nothing to prove the "randomized" data has been changed.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    88. Re:Only works if it's default install by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      There are many ways to fix this problem which have not (as of yet) been implemented by truecrypt:

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's because the easiest fix by far has nothing to do with the way TrueCrypt works. Simply keep separate partitions for your OS/software and your user data. This is actually a very common practice in the Unix world (mount one drive as / and another drive as /home, /tmp, and whatever else gets written to with any frequency) and has a number of very obvious benefits completely apart from anything illicit. The thing is, once you have your system set up and running, the drive mounted as / will almost never have any significant amount of new data written to it, and could conceivably be run for a long time without filling up. The extra space would, of course, simply be there against future need if you were to need to install more software onto the system.

      To top it off, buy your hard drive used (it's very common for companies to sell used hard drives that have been wiped with random data). So you've got a used hard drive which understandably has had random data written to its entire volume, and you have a setup where a large portion of space is intentionally and understandably left free. And it's a perfectly sensible and common way of setting things up to boot (pun intended). Am I missing anything?

    89. Re:Only works if it's default install by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords.

      Won't there be a serious discrepancy in free space on the "public" volume?

      If the truecrypt partition is 10GB, with 5GB worth of data and 2.5GB free, the customs officers would probably demand an explanation.

    90. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      a hidden volume doesn't show up as free space

      Oh but it does...

      http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume.php

      The principle is that a TrueCrypt volume is created within another TrueCrypt volume (within the free space on the volume). Even when the outer volume is mounted, it is impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not*, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created** and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data. Note that TrueCrypt does not modify the file system (information about free space, etc.) within the outer volume in any way.

      (emphasis added)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    91. Re:Only works if it's default install by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      Simple reason why I had seeks to an area that looks empty, it's because I *used* to have files there before I deleted them, then since I'm savvy enough to use Truecrypt, I ran one of those wipe programs that overwrites it with garbage, hence what you see if you look at the drive forensically, garbage.

      You mean like purposefully destroying evidence, right?

    92. Re:Only works if it's default install by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I fear big egos will lead many geeks to underestimate their adversaries. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :)

      Actually, I think it's big egos that lead many geeks to think they even have adversaries. People spend a lot of time creating convoluted hypothetical situations which their cleverness can defeat. Really, no one much cares about your secret plans. TrueCrypt is handy but for most of us, not critical - a password protected zip file would be good enough for most of my data.

    93. Re:Only works if it's default install by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like truecrypt needs to use a 3 password system then. The first password opens the first partition. The second password opens the hidden partition. The third password opens the first partition and blanks the hidden partition destroying it.

      It's foolish to assume that the gestapo is going to let you write a bunch of files to the first partition after you open it. What they are going to do is open the first partition in read only mode to prevent the destruction of such evidence. It's also foolish to assume they are going to let you be the one to type in the password at all.

      What is likely to happen is they will set you and your laptop down in a room with an operator. They will ask you nicely and you will give them the first password. The operator will type it in and open the first partition in read only mode. You will never touch the computer.

      Then with that password they will examine the drive and possibly find the second hidden partition. Then they will simply beat the password out of you for it.

      If there is a third password option you can give it to them. Once the operator types it in the second partition is borked and all evidence of it removed leaving the first and only partition on the drive.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    94. Re:Only works if it's default install by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Informative

      To answer your points:

      1) The default filesystem of TrueCrypt volumes is FAT32. Unlike modern filesystems, FAT32 sticks new data as close to the start of the disk as possible, leading to the inefficiency and fragmentation issues that FAT32 is notorious for.
      2) The hidden volume is placed at the end of the filesystem, the area of the disk that, on a FAT32 filesystem, is most likely to be empty.

      I believe this answers your concerns.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    95. Re:Only works if it's default install by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Those people may also know that there are other crypto software out there that don't have the hidden volume feature, so if you are voluntarily choosing TrueCrypt, there's a significant chance that you are using the hidden volume feature.

      Or the fact that other crypt software costs $$$ and I'm to fucking cheap to shell out for it. TC is free after all.

      Then there is that TC source is available and I can check it for backdoors myself.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    96. Re:Only works if it's default install by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Unless they're being casual about it, they won't access the drive in the computer you give them. They'll image it, work on the image, and then use your own computer to beat you with, once they put the drive back in (to make it heavier and thus better for beatings).

    97. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Then with that password they will examine the drive and possibly find the second hidden partition. Then they will simply beat the password out of you for it.

      Hidden partitions aren't meant to be found... the TrueCrypt folks seem convinced that it's impossible, at any rate.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    98. Re:Only works if it's default install by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They'll create a copy of the disk and work from that.

      Even if TrueCrypt wasn't open source, they'd make the disk image read-only. If they wanted to get fancy, they'd intercept and log any attempted writes to the image (clearly indicating use of the third password).

      But, it is open source, so they can easily modify the code to detect this third password, *not* overwrite that block, and warn the investigator that such a procedure was attempted.

    99. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      1. The drive is encrypted. Everything looks like random data.

      2. Even if the drive is decrypted using the password, "empty" spaces are always filled with random data because that's how TrueCrypt initializes blank volumes.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    100. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's essentially what the hidden partition does: disguises the encrypted information as dead and truly empty space. The difference is that the hidden partition's address is saved in encrypted form and it is recoverable by supplying the correct password. Once the password for the hidden partition is entered, the header can be decoded and it points to the location of the hidden data.

      It's actually even more secure than what you suggest, because to recover the file the location must still exist somewhere on the computer, and law enforcement probably won't have much trouble finding that. For TrueCrypt hidden partitions, the location is encrypted to look like random data as well, so without the password, it's impossible even to decode the location of the encrypted data.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    101. Re:Only works if it's default install by v1 · · Score: 1

      I agree that user data should be kept separate from OS. Unfortunately, windows and its registry and other technologies make this very hard to do. The OS itself isn't even portable between computers usually.

      Being from a mac environment, I try to go this way whenever possible. My OS will boot any new mac I encounter (intel). My home folder has an Applications folder of its own where all my installed apps go. So my /Applications folder is strictly what comes with the OS. So I am fairly well self contained within my home folder. (I DO have to keep a list of apps to install when completely replacing my OS, because there are things that it installs in system folders like /Library) For that, Mac OS X comes with filevault.

      But this is probably beyond the scope/issue of truecrypt.

      Bug with OS X btw, your home folder's volume MUST be mounted before you login. At the login screen, other (non boot) volumes are not mounted, and you will not be able to login if your home folder is not accessible at login. I tried to put my home folder on another volume but ran into that problem as of 10.4. Clearly there's a little hack going on internally for network home folders.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    102. Re:Only works if it's default install by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      I tried the hidden container feature to see how it works (and found it too annoying to always input two passwords).

      You don't have to enter 2 passwords to use the hidden volume.

    103. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but imagine what they might do if they were worried about the machines taking their jobs...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    104. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, Why does this 2gb USB key only show up as 1gb when I plug it in?

    105. Re:Only works if it's default install by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Except that's not the way a hidden volume works. Unless you enter the keys for both the outer volume and inner volume at the same time, all you'd see is a 10GB partition with 5GB of data and 5GB of free space. Since Truecrypt encrypts free space when it creates a container (it's not like it's a bunch of 0s or something), there's no way of determining that there's a second container, and that the remaining 5GB aren't just unused regular space. This is done intentionally for preventing exactly the sort of scenario you described.

      The downside is that if you just decrypt the outer volume, then fill up the entire outer volume with data, you'll overwrite the inner volume and destroy it because the operating system doesn't even know it's there unless it's active.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    106. Re:Only works if it's default install by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      There are many uses for encryption, such as (as others have suggested elsewhere in this comment section)financial records and almost anything to do with business clients/other peoples data (encryption should have been in use on the disks which were lost in the UK fairly recently).

      I think that highlights my point quite well. Just because encryption can be used for financial data doesn't mean much if there's a history of people not using encryption for financial data. In short, that strongly implies that the only people who would bother to use encryption software are the ones with something to hide, ie criminals.

      The fact that you hand over a password doesn't matter much. Why? Because (a) law enforcement will figure out that Truecrypt can contain a hidden volume and (b) if the data they do find with your first key isn't incriminating enough, it implies to them that you're using a decoy. Plausible deniability rests upon the presumption that your denial is plausible (obviously). If the vast majority of people don't use encryption and further of those that do, only a small fraction use software that can contain decoys, then a lot of your deniability isn't plausible enough.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    107. Re:Only works if it's default install by sudog · · Score: 1

      Not mathematically.. logically.

      But it'd be tough to explain all that random data that keeps getting written over and over to your drive.

    108. Re:Only works if it's default install by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      A data forensic specialist will look at all these free blocks, and guess what your SCSI/IDE/FC harddrive tells them in the low level meta data how many seek misses I've had in each area of the disk.

      I don't know the details of what metadata hard drives contain but if truecrypt wanted to provide plausible deniability against that specifically then it could do random reads of blocks. It could even do random writes, changing a block to a random value then changing it back to what it was before (journaled in case of interruption). It can't do this very often without lowering drive lifespan, but it doesn't take much to ruin using metadata for forensics.

      Also I really doubt they read hard drive meta data on every drive they image. By imaging the drive, they're changing the meta data, thus altering the evidence. You can mount a drive read only, but is there a way to mount it such that it doesn't mess with it's metadata. Forensics isn't just finding the evidence, it's also chain of custody and proving the evidence wasn't altered/contaminated in the process.

    109. Re:Only works if it's default install by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Your proposal is also not going to happen. So lets come back to reality, eh? What TrueCrypt offers is a way to ensure that no one can ever be sure you have given up "all" of your passwords. They can't even tell how many you have. You could have one or you could have a dozen. Maybe you might crack under torture, but under a legal threat (a little more plausible for most people than being tortured to reveal their foot fetish pr0n or MP3 collection) you are pretty safe.

      An authority might be able to make a successful argument that because you have crypto, you must be hiding something and thus MUST give up your password. Fair enough, you give up your password and reveal your financial records. They authorities can then make the slightly less concrete argument that you MUST be hiding something else, because if that was what you were REALLY hiding, you would have given a false password that leads to something other than the thing you really want to hide. Again, you can shrug and offer up the password to your foot fetish collection.

      At this point, their arguments break down. You can make a fair argument you must be hiding something. You can make a flimsier argument that you must be hiding the thing that you are hiding with a false thing that you are hiding. Beyond that, you could have any number of fake passwords. A dozen passwords is just as plausible as three. In the end, there is no way to prove that you downloaded a 10 second MP3 clip from Madonna that the RIAA storm troopers swear you have (well... at least your hard drive won't give you away).

      So yes, crypto fall all might be nice, but baring that piece of fantasy, crypto for me is good enough.

    110. Re:Only works if it's default install by aCC · · Score: 1

      You don't have to enter 2 passwords to use the hidden volume.

      You have to enter 2 passwords if you want to use the outer volume without damaging the inner one.

    111. Re:Only works if it's default install by julesh · · Score: 1

      You mean like purposefully destroying evidence, right?

      It isn't evidence unless it has already been seized by the police/a court.

    112. Re:Only works if it's default install by julesh · · Score: 1

      Lets say you have a 100gb hard drive, and have decided to break away 15gb of that for an alternate volume. Since the OS has to be on it, it can't be very small (300mb for example) as you could do normally with an obvious encrypted disk image document.

      It is not a common usage pattern of truecrypt to install an OS on the hidden volume. In fact, I don't believe you would be able to boot such an OS. A 15GB hidden volume would therefore be unusually large. The only application I can see for that is storing large quantities of sensitive video files. I can accept that for such an unusual requirement truecrypt may not be ideal, although it isn't as weak as you suggest.

      Unfortunately, over time data is spread around on your hard drive. All current OS's move the next available block pointer forward on the drive as it's used.

      Not true. FAT filesystems (the only supported filesystem type if you want to use hidden partitions) reset the free block pointer on each remount, as it isn't stored on the disk. This has the effect of concentrating usage on a FAT fs at the start of the volume. There is usually a large chunk of free space towards the end of the disk (unless at some point the disk has been completely full and it hasn't been defragged since).

      If you've provided your 2nd password, truecrypt will "hop" over the hidden partition to avoid damaging it. But that's the problem.

      It would be if it were true. However, truecrypt does not actually do this. All it does is write-protect the sectors in the hidden partition, which means that if your OS tries to overwrite it, you will get error messages. The data will not be redirected to somewhere else on the disk.

      If you continue to use your trojan partition, a simple look at used disk space will see a fairly even coverage mix of free and used blocks, except for one conspicuous, contiguous 15gb chunk of unused space, smack in the middle of the "only volume" on the disk. It could be very difficult to explain to someone analyzing your drive.

      I've used truecrypt extensively in the past, and I've never seen anything like this. You need to remember to regularly defrag the primary volume, which has the side effect of compressing the usage down into the earlier parts. Also note that truecrypt hidden volumes are always at the end of the disk, not in the middle. This works well with the pattern of usage seen in FAT systems (as I describe above).

    113. Re:Only works if it's default install by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Right, that's why we'll ship you to a 'friendly' foreign nation for interrogation and/or torture after we declare you as an enemy combatant. WE didn't torture you, our allies did. Accidentally. We now have plausible deniability, just like you.

      Now what was that password again?

      Waterboarding is illegal in democratic countries. US constitution has Fifth Amendment. User can be asked to show what is in encrypted volume and he can show it, if he or she wants to help police in investigation. If police claims that user has some hidden volume that file, they would be accusing user without having a proof.

    114. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "oh really, how inconvenient,
      Bring out the waterboard!"

    115. Re:Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIEG HEIL! Nazi-grammar rul3z!

    116. Re:Only works if it's default install by duggy_92127 · · Score: 1

      I fear big egos will lead many geeks to underestimate their adversaries. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :)

      The great part is that you're totally right. I had a friend who was an FBI forensic computer examiner, and was privy to many of their techniques and stories (omitting anything identifying, of course). Now, I'm not claiming that they can "spot" a hidden folder or anything like that; I have no idea about this particular case and technology. But it is true that the vast majority of the crowd here grossly underestimates the intelligence and technical savvy employed by our federal government. It can be both hilarious and infuriating, depending on context.

      Just wanted to toss that onto the fire. Burn, baby, burn!

      Doug

    117. Re:Only works if it's default install by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't never call anything impossible, just unlikely. The hidden compartment of TC is a pretty nifty feature but I don't think I would call it perfect. What one person believes impossible more often than not that person is wrong.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    118. Re:Only works if it's default install by tokul · · Score: 1

      If your police ships suspects to some 'friendly' foreign nation for interrogations, then you are not living in democratic country. 'plausible deniability' does not protect from brute force. It protects people, when interrogators can't threaten them physically.

      If interrogators can waterboard you, they can kill you as well.

      Any information that you get from threatened person is worthless, because person would do anything (lies included) to avoid being killed or tortured.

    119. Re:Only works if it's default install by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Maybe you weren't paying attention to all the illegal and now seemingly legalized wiretapping? Its not too hard to envision a future where sending encrypted data that the 'gubmint' doesn't have a backdoor to across national borders will be illegal, or at least require a license.

      The thing about data is that it doesn't have to be grown in the jungles for a while before being transferred somewhere. The neat thing about data is that it can be transferred in multitudes of ways electronically thereby making physical copies a moot point.

      One of the tricks the East Germans and the KGB did in the 80s was to use low baud modems disguised as calculators which they'd punch in the data they want to transfer and then walk up to any old pay phone and send a call to the Russian Embassy which could send an encrypted message without anyone being able to do anything about it. The West did similar things in the Eastern block but often used shortwave radio and read data out and were gone before someone could triangulate them.

      Now pay phones and short wave radios aren't that popular these days but anyone using clandestine situations (and I'm talking about Russian and Chinese operations) would most likley use internet cafes and stenographic techniques with files. The only way to prevent that would be to shut down the internet which makes the whole thing useless.

      You could outlaw the technology but anyone dealing with that kind of issues has a disposal unit which they are going to drop their laptop in as soon as someone kicks down the door.

      What I'm trying to say, anyone worth their salt is going to be transferring data over the internet because its harder to detect and harder to determine who and where its going from and who its going to. Anyone who is carrying the data on them through customs is a dumbass and shouldn't be in the business of espionage.

      Again... Truecrypt is for mom and pop who want to protect their data from theives. If you are worried about the CIA, Chinese, or Russian equivalents then you need something a bit more.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    120. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Granted, that. "The TrueCrypt folks" seem to think it's impossible. As you said, it is pretty hard to claim that something is "impossible", so I'm willing to take their claim to mean "impossible to positively identify using any known method". Even the metadata trick is probably going to have a fairly high rate of false positives (and false negatives, for that matter), and people who are actively seeking to fool that method will probably decrease its accuracy even further.

      As long as you can't be convicted or tortured under the banner of "we think", you should be protected because they can't be SURE you have a hidden partition. Even if they suspect it, they have a good chance of being wrong. Now, if you can be convicted or tortured on those grounds, you're pretty much hosed, if you'll pardon the pun...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    121. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming they had physical access to the system without the knowledge of the person under investigation. I don't think that will be the case in most situations.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    122. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Its not too hard to envision a future where sending encrypted data that the 'gubmint' doesn't have a backdoor to across national borders will be illegal, or at least require a license.

      If that day ever comes, I guarantee there will be people with the desire and ability to do so illegally.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    123. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand this very well... maybe you're used to an older version of TrueCrypt.

      It is not a common usage pattern of truecrypt to install an OS on the hidden volume. In fact, I don't believe you would be able to boot such an OS.

      Incorrect. An OS can be installed on and booted from a hidden partition (as of version 6.0).

      FAT filesystems (the only supported filesystem type if you want to use hidden partitions)

      Not entirely true. From the FAQ, "when mounted, TrueCrypt volumes can be formatted as FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, or any other file system." Obviously keeping the data at the beginning of the drive would be beneficial, so FAT filesystems may be preferable, but they're not mandatory.

      All it does is write-protect the sectors in the hidden partition, which means that if your OS tries to overwrite it, you will get error messages.

      Your argument is valid, but again your facts are not entirely correct. If the outer volume is mounted with inner volume protection enabled, any write attempts to the protected inner volume will fail and the entire outer volume (including but not limited to the region which contains the inner volume) will immediately become read-only.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    124. Re:Only works if it's default install by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Torture... hoses... Sorry man, the password to my porn collection isn't that important. Its on the d: drive in a container labeled Porn.TC. The password is "tits and ass." Do you want the password to the secret stash of donkey porn?

      I suffered for my porn collection but I'm not going to hurt for it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    125. Re:Only works if it's default install by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      This is usually the case in most cases of real interest. You don't need a robust ability to disguise things against casual inspection. Beyond casual inspection, they will seize the system. If TrueCrypt is really your primary barrier against police investigation and you will have advance warning if they come to take your hard drives away, you're probably better off using a more robust destruction mechanism (like wiping the entire hard drive).

    126. Re:Only works if it's default install by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to destroy the data or wipe the hard drive. The hidden partition keeps it hidden unless the law enforcement, as you suggested, can sniff the password somehow. My point was, to get that password, they'd need to install a rootkit or keylogger without your knowledge (if you knew your machine was compromised you obviously wouldn't be typing in your secret password).

      Seizing the system would be a huge clue-in to the particular individual under investigation, don't you think? After this point, I really doubt they'll be typing any passwords into their machine unless they don't mind being snooped on... and there's no way to detect the hidden partition without that secret password...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    127. Re:Only works if it's default install by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      I'm fairly certain that passwords are not protected by lies. You can create additional dummy partitions, but each one of them takes up a certain (assuredly known) amount of space on the media.

      You could certainly lie about anything not digitally recoverable, but then we'd have to hurt you, again. As long as we preserve the illusion of democracy that is enough. And who can stop us? A handful of malcontent software engineers?

      Any information that you get from threatened person is worthless, because person would do anything (lies included) to avoid being killed or tortured.

    128. Re: Only works if it's default install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add "IMHO" to your first sentence. The one where you are wrong but it's OK as you are only spouting off your opinion.

      Your second sentence is quite the leap. You have any examples of TrueCrypt users getting beaten en masse? Or are you spouting out the other end?

      Your third sentence is of the form 'if impossible condition then everything's fine'. Oh yes, you managed not only to posit the impossible, but also to make it sound really stupid.

      Your argument boils down to "TrueCrypt is useless because not everyone has it. Anyone who uses it will be beaten. Go Aggies! Woo!" Both parts of your argument show the effect of either inexperience, alcohol, or a lesser intelligence.

      And of course your assumptions, hmm, remain to be shown.

    129. Re:Only works if it's default install by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      if one has TC installed then it's pretty obvious he wants to hide something.

      What I and my customers want is to hide personal and business data from thieves. Which is why I use TrueCrypt and why I install it for my customers, because it's the best tool I know of for the job.

  5. A good defense... by azuredrake · · Score: 1

    ...against this? Or will it just get you in more trouble? What's the community's take on it?

    --
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    1. Re:A good defense... by apathy+maybe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes it is a good defence against that. Border guards aren't going to have enough time to find your encrypted containers while you are there, and if you have to give up your laptop, or if they take a copy of the HD, then they can't access the information because they don't have the password (and they can't force the password out of you, because you have already re-entered the country (assuming you are a yank)).

      And if they do find a container, and force you to give up the password http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=606473&cid=24097339 hidden volumes as described in that post.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:A good defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is a good defence against [Laptops being searched and confiscated at U.S. Border]

      No it doesn't. Stop pretending to be oh so clever when you're facing border guards who can confiscate laptops of suspicious people. Like for example those who have encrypted partitions on their laptops.

      Outlawing encryption is not in the least a new concept for US (or recently UK) authorities.

  6. Relevant links by Oscaro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Project homepage is here: http://www.truecrypt.org/
    Release notes here http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history

    (Btw, these links should be in the article, instead of an external (sponsored?) one).

  7. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    even if you're forced to reveal your pre-boot password to an adversary, you can give them one that boots into a plausible decoy operating system, with your hidden operating system remaining completely undetectable

    In what case would this be useful? If you have an adversary that can force you to give a password, I'm sure they can force you to boot up the correct operating system as well. And if they are in a position to force you to give up the password, it might not be wise to try to play a switcharoo on them.

    In the cases where this would actually be useful (with your boss or the government inspections), they will probably have the ability to detect that you are not being entirely truthful. You can hide an operating system in your encryption, but you can't hide gigabytes of hard disk space that is mysteriously missing on probes.

    1. Re:OK by apathy+maybe · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the release notes:

      Ability to create and run an encrypted hidden operating system whose existence is impossible to prove (provided that certain guidelines are followed). For more information, see the section Hidden Operating System. (Windows Vista/XP/2008/2003)

      It appears to work just like a hidden volume (also described in this post).

      In other words, you worry to much, these guys are really really smart.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically, the decoy OS could see all of your data as empty space. As long as the encryption program knows enough about the decoy FS, it can leave the decoy portions alone and only write into "empty" spaces.

      Of course, running the decoy could overwrite your data. But if you're going to be paranoid, you may as well go all the way.

      *I don't know if TrueCrypt works this way or if it even addresses this really obvious problem. But I would hope so.

    3. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well as far as i know this would work the same way as it would if it were the standard file based encryption.

      meaning if someone were to log in using the decoy passcode, it shows as if the rest of the system is free, while in actuality the hidden partiton lies there and can be overwritten if it isn't protected...

    4. Re:OK by hviezda14 · · Score: 1

      The gigabytes of space are not missing, they are presented as empty space. They can only admit that there is too much empty space at the end of filesystem.

    5. Re:OK by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence agency would have a copy of the laptop hard drive before they even begin to ask questions. the hidden volume presumes they will use your hardware, that is not a well-founded assumption.

    6. Re:OK by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Informative

      No..

      The decoy OS is not a outer, non hidden volume, it is a seperate partition. You must run the decoy OS regulary so it becomes obvouus it is a used OS. YOu can do safely

    7. Re:OK by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Informative

      actually you can. with truecrypt I can create an encrypted volume which is just a file on my hard disk. say it's 1 gigabyte. To access it I have to type in my password "secretpass" I see a 1 gigabyte volume. now I can stop there. it's encrypted strongly enough to protect my files. I throw 200 MB of porn/corporate data/personal emails/photos of my girlfriend on there. it shows as 800MB free. Now I create a hidden volume 800 MB in size. In there I put my plans for how to kill every politician, the details of my drugrunning opperation, the plans for a nuclear weapon. etc etc etc. to access this I have to type in my second password "password2" So I boot up truecrypt, select the 1 gig file which is my virtual drive, type in "secretpass". What I then see is a 1 gig drive with 800mb free space and lots of semi-important files. if I open that same file with "password2" I'll see an 800MB drive almost full with highly important documents. There is no missing hard drive space, no hint at all that there is anything but the first drive unless I enter the second password. (side note, if you add files to the first drive then there's a chance that you'll overwrite files on the hidden drive since unless you enter that password as well then truecrypt can't see that it's there.)

    8. Re:OK by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not hidden like a physical object. hidden in the "noise" that makes up the empty space on the disk. and there is no way to tell the difference between empty, unused space and a hidden volume.

    9. Re:OK by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Okay but now I know to look out for people running truecrypt and to ask to see their encrypted volume (rubber hose held behind back at that point) so they show me their partly used 800mb encrypted volume, I image it and start a dictionary attack to get the rest of the info.

    10. Re:OK by dainichi · · Score: 0

      ...but you can't hide gigabytes of hard disk space that is mysteriously missing on probes.

      I dunno. I had a weird bug that made windows think I had a multi peta-byte HDD. an extention on that, and you should be good to go.

      --
      "Oooh. I hate it when a paradigm shifts without a clutch"
    11. Re:OK by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

      you seem to have missed the point in a big way. You see a truecrypt container. You hold back the rubber hose or start with the thumbscrews. after much screaming they give you a password. You see a 1 gig volume with 200mb of confidential and mildly valuable files and 800mb of free space. It's is utterly plausible that this is all there is. there are no more files. you've got all you're gonna get. no hidden volume. Now you might try some more torture but your victim is also aware that there is no proof at all that there is any more to find. Perhaps I have a 1 gig volume with 998MB used on the outside with a 2 MB hidden volume where I keep my plans to kill the president. as for a dictionary attack, you haven't ever tried this have you? if there's a decent password then it will take you about a million years(or more) to brute force it using every computer on earth.

    12. Re:OK by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Of course, running the decoy could overwrite your data. But if you're going to be paranoid, you may as well go all the way.

      If you have data of such importance as to require this kind of security, you have backups of it. You don't care if your hidden volume gets overwritten while the secret police are searching your regular volume, because once they're done you can just restore.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    13. Re:OK by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I image it and start a dictionary attack to get the rest of the info.

      That'll only work if you're using a weak password. This may be the common case, but I doubt it's the common case among people paranoid enough to set up TrueCrypt hidden volumes. For instance, you can't dictionary attack a 12 character, randomly-generated password drawn from a 95-character alphabet (alphanumeric + 33 symbols; ascii 32-126), maybe unless you run a big botnet or work at the NSA.

    14. Re:OK by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Its really the NSA I am talking about.

    15. Re:OK by houghi · · Score: 1

      I had the same thing happening on a Linux box. File of several Peta bytes. Took a few days until I noticed that the backup was still running making an MD5SUM of the file.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:OK by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative
      You miss the point. Anyone who truly has something to hide to the extent of worrying about torture will have an utterly plausible explanation or ten prepared. That won't stop someone who is willing to use torture from continuing until they get more or you have resisted for so long that they believe you are telling the truth when you're saying there is no more.

      So when they get the first password, they continue until they get another or they decide there's no way you could have withstood that much. And when they get your second password, they'll still go on in the hope of a third, unless the data they find would totally fill the disk.

      Each time you give up something, they'll assume there may be more until they've kept torturing you for a long time without getting any more information.

    17. Re:OK by ps236 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even the NSA would have to devote a significant part of their resources. 95^12 is over 500 sextillion combinations. So, say you've got a really really fast CPU that can do 1 billion test decrypts a second (which is unfeasibly fast at the current time). It would take that computer over 17 million years to find the password.

      So, let's say that the NSA has a million CPUs at their disposal, it would still take over 17 years to decrypt. So, they'd have to be pretty sure that you have some seriously cool porn on your PC before they start devoting 100,000,000 impossibly fast CPUs to the task of cracking your password in a couple of months.

      The Storm Botnet would take centuries to hack a random 12 character password (it would cut down on spam though).

      Of course, if you choose 'password' as your password it might not take quite as long.

    18. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Truecrypt will automatically fill the entire hard disk with random encrypted data, so there is no way to tell what is (if anything) contained in unused disk space. From the TrueCrypt documentation Note: When you enter a pre-boot authentication password, the TrueCrypt Boot Loader first attempts to decrypt (using the entered password) the last 512 bytes of the first logical track of the system drive (where encrypted master key data for non-hidden encrypted system partitions/drives are normally stored). If it fails and if there is a partition behind the boot partition, the TrueCrypt Boot Loader (even if there is actually no hidden volume on the drive) automatically tries to decrypt (using the same entered password again) the area of the first partition behind the boot partition where the encrypted header of a possible hidden volume might be stored. Note that TrueCrypt never knows if there is a hidden volume in advance (the hidden volume header cannot be identified, as it appears to consist entirely of random data). If the header is successfully decrypted (for information on how TrueCrypt determines that it was successfully decrypted, see the section Encryption Scheme), the information about the size of the hidden volume is retrieved from the decrypted header (which is still stored in RAM), and the hidden volume is mounted (its size also determines its offset). For further technical details, see the section Encryption Scheme in the chapter Technical Details.

    19. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So what you're saying is, your mystery interrogator is going to torture you to death, so you've no incentive to give it up?

      You're saying you're fucked if you do, and you're fucked if you don't. So we shouldn't talk about TrueCrypt at all then really? None of us really have a practical use for it?

      I personally use it for just sensitive documents, and as a nice storage place I can move around, and keep prying eyes from. I have numerous volumes, all of which would take too long to brute force, and none of which look like a TrueCrypt volume (they don't have a .tc extension).

      Also, a lot of the people who use this are either security conscious, or are in the scene and such, so they use things like this. They aren't going to be tortured, and plausible deny-ability works well in their instances.

    20. Re:OK by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      *"Did you tell them anything?" #"Yes everything I knew!" *"Was that enough for them?" #"No they'll be back for you in a few minutes." *"Blast!" it isn't perfect, while there are humans who know there is data those humans can be tortured to try to get that info. All trucrypt does is give people a decent chance to resist moderate rubberhosing. Combine with steganography if you want to avoid people even knowing there's data to be found.

    21. Re:OK by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone who truly has something to hide to the extent of worrying about torture will have an utterly plausible explanation or ten prepared.

            No, anyone who truly has something to hide will not send someone through customs with compromising information. That's where compartmentalization comes in. Encrypt your file, break it apart, and mail the parts to yourself separately. If you really want to be paranoid - to different recipients at different addresses. On different days. If one package is intercepted, the data will be meaningless. Also for good measure throw in some CD's/DVD's with truly random data - so if all the CD's are intercepted they will not know which ones are the real ones.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:OK by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Is this password safe: 1 2 3 4 5

    23. Re:OK by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The most effective way of finding out whether a second volume exists at this point would be to start copying files into the free space of the drive and observe the suspect's reaction as their secret data gets erased. Most effective if you back up first, so you (but not the suspect) still have the original volume intact. This assumes that they need the data for this trip, and cannot easily retrieve any backup they might have left behind before they need it, thus erasing their data is likely to get a reaction.

    24. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Of course, if you choose 'password' as your password it might not take quite as long.

      Damn.

    25. Re:OK by vertinox · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Anyone who truly has something to hide to the extent of worrying about torture will have an utterly plausible explanation or ten prepared. That won't stop someone who is willing to use torture from continuing until they get more or you have resisted for so long that they believe you are telling the truth when you're saying there is no more.

      Look. If you are being tortured for using truecrypt then you have bigger things to worry about. If you are in the US or European countries and you are being tortured then the rule of law has been thrown out the window.

      Otherwise, if you are in other countries where torture is the norm, then you have to mitigate such issues by such things or cyanide tablets and giving having the carriers of the data ignorant to what the passwords are or the contents of the data they are carrying.

      If you were really smart you'd develop a self destruct system in which if someone did breach your security you could instantly destroy your data or have a system in which the data is rendered unusable if you give them a certain password.

      Most of the scenarios are far what is warranted by truecrypt which is to prevent unauthorized access to data when the computer itself has been physical compromised (like theft).

      After all 10,000 laptops were stolen at the airport last year and if you do carry personal information on a computer you travel with, truecrypt sounds like the best method to keep theives from getting to your information if they do steal your laptop.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    26. Re:OK by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      TrueCrypt does have this taken into consideration. If you are running the outer volume simply for the sake of making it appear used, you can supply both passwords when you mount it and TrueCrypt will protect the hidden volume from being over-written. If the spooks force you to reveal the password to the outer volume, on the other hand, the inner volume won't be protected since you haven't entered the password for it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    27. Re:OK by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Meh. It could work, or if the suspect was a good liar it just as easily might not. It'd be foolish to give yourself away by your reaction, and even a fool would TRY to conceal it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    28. Re:OK by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      My password is 20 characters long, you insensitive clod! (OK, so I haven't memorized it yet...)

    29. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is, your mystery interrogator is going to torture you to death, so you've no incentive to give it up?

      Yes.

      But that's a two-edged sword. Our mystery interrogator's probably delighted to crush our testicles in a vise if he thinks you're a real terrist with knowledge a ticking time bomb. Which has never happened.

      He's probably only willing to break a few bones or carve your balls off along the way to killing you if he thinks you're a pedo. Which is probably only one in a thousand people, and only 99% of interrogators would even go that far.

      If all you've got to hide is a case of teh ghey (5-10% of the population), maybe he'll stop after a black eye. But only the most homophobic 30% of interrogators would go that far; the rest would start to feel pretty guilty about their jobs if, for every pedo freak they find, they'd bashed 50 comparatively harmless gays/lesbians. The other 70% of interrogators would have pretty strong crises of conscience. They'd either resign (bad, by virtue of increasing the proportion of gay-bashing interrogators still on the job) or demand change from within (good).

      If all you've got to hide is a couple hundred megabytes of straight-up b00bies, your past ten years of tax returns, and a bunch of boring corporate memos (95-99.9% of the crypto-using population, the other 4% of the population having teh ghey), 99% of interrogators are going to resign after the first week. Or find some excuse to torture their bosses to death on their way to the exit interview.

      It's a numbers game. The more frequently that interrogators are forced to torture law-abiding citizens, the more likely it is that the torturers themselves will quit. It runs counter to the Milgram experiment, and it's therefore a huge gamble, but even the Germans under $GODWIN and the Russians under Stalin didn't subject 20-30% of their loyal population to torture. Surveillance, absolutely -- just like we do -- but not torture. I don't dispute Milgram's results, but I do dispute that Milgram's experiment would have scaled to 20-30% of the population. German and Soviet society would have collapsed.

    30. Re:OK by eiapoce · · Score: 1

      Come on... if you are not a spy then the torturer would be the wife or maybe the boss.

      Neither of the two classes has the required technical skills to even remotely grasp the concept of encryption. As a matter of fact most of them have seriuos problems with any security policy for their own passwords.

    31. Re:OK by eiapoce · · Score: 1

      Is this password safe: 1 2 3 4 5

      That's safe ONLY if the guy trying to decrypt is so overrun by paranoia that he skips enterely a bruteforce with a wordlist and starts a plain bruteforce looking for password > 10 characters. Given the case of /dotters here I thing that it would be safe around 20% of times.

      BTW... that's a Spaceball quote! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/quotes

      President Skroob: [enters after the interrogation of King Roland] Well? Did it work? Where's the king?
      Dark Helmet: It worked, sir. We have the combination.
      President Skroob: Great. Now we can take every last breath of fresh air from planet Druidia. What's the combination?
      Dark Helmet: 1 2 3 4 5.
      President Skroob: 1 2 3 4 5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage! Prepare Spaceball 1 for immediate departure!
      Dark Helmet: Yes, sir!
      President Skroob: And change the combination on my luggage!

  8. Great - I'll keep my geek-cred by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    It now has the ability to hide an entire operating system, so even if you're forced to reveal your pre-boot password to an adversary, you can give them one that boots into a plausible decoy operating system, with your hidden operating system remaining completely undetectable.

    Great, I can now maintain my geek-cred by hiding the fact that I sometimes have to boot into Windows to run things like a GPS map updater. No more microsoft on the boot menu.

    1. Re:Great - I'll keep my geek-cred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hidden OS is a copy of the decoy. You can't have a Linux/Windows setup.

  9. Sad by ebonum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's sad. I often travel between the US and China on business ( I live on the China side ). I've always been careful with sensitive data, but now I'm absolutely fascist. Why? I have no fear of the Chinese government. Besides, I work for a Chinese company. I fear my own country illegally accessing files to which they have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

    Honestly. If someone works for the US government, pulls some CEO's laptop at the boarder for "inspection" and gets free access to all the company financials, would they do the right thing? How many semi-intelligent people wouldn't be tempted to start buying stock options or call their best friend with a really good "tip"? Even if they SEC investigated, they would never find the link.

    Over the last several years, I've always been treated very respectfully inside China and going to and from. It is in the US, my own country, where I'm treated as if I'm already guilty.

    Back to the topic at hand. TrueCrypt is a wonderful product. Everyone should be using it.

    1. Re:Sad by slyguy135 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have no fear of the Chinese government.

      Wow, what Kool-aid have you been drinking? I've been to China many times too, and love the place, but I'm afraid you're being seriously delusional if you think it's safe to be that blasé around the Chinese authorities. The American search procedures at the US border would indeed be unconstitutional were they conducted in the country, but at least you know up front what the rules are. In China, your rights are vague at best and your recourse to law is minimal. If next time you enter China the border officers did decide they are going to take your laptop away, what could you do about it? Oh, but if they're polite, then that's OK, right?

      Fanboyism of China is not helpful to the country and unattractive, so please stop it; it's embarrassing, and even potentially dangerous.

    2. Re:Sad by bhima · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This absolutely mirrors my own experience. I live in the EU and I travel mostly around the EU and Africa. When I get to the US I'm treated as a convicted criminal and I'm a US citizen. I am routinely hassled and threatened by petty dictators of nano-dictorships. Which I find completely bizarre... Hell the security & customs agents in Zimbabwe are more polite than the ones in Atlanta.

      Another thing I find complete asinine is that little form you fill out saying where you are going stay while you are in the US. I've been staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. for going on 6 years and no one has so much a blinked.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I get to the US I'm treated as a convicted criminal

      I've been staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. for going on 6 years

      That sounds about right.

    4. Re:Sad by catxk · · Score: 1

      I've been staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. for going on 6 years and no one has so much a blinked.

      Well, maybe they have blinked but since the address is what it is, it would only be reasonable they went to 1600 Pen. ave. with their latex gloves. The person living there might very well have been through quite a rough time the last 6-7 years because of you, and you wouldn't even know it.

      --
      Don't be crazy anymore!
    5. Re:Sad by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      forget the address requirement - I'm still keen to know why I am asked

      'Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with nazi Germany or its allies?'

      I'm assuming that the dangerous kind of terrorist or spy will have had enough training to know that ticking the 'No' box is the best way to continue about their business...

    6. Re:Sad by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fanboyism of China is not helpful ... and even potentially dangerous."

            Thanks for the laugh. Oh wait, you were serious? LOOK! There's a "terrorist" behind you! Boo!

            Then again, how could we not have expected the nation that is chronically high on cocaine to become paranoid delusional?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Sad by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      That would be because the Chinese govenment wants you to feel calm and secure because there security is competent. Fail the background checks there running as you disembark and see how calming it is. I do agree there is something very wrong with US border controls though, the people who man them seem inhuman.

    8. Re:Sad by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that the dangerous kind of terrorist or spy will have had enough training to know that ticking the 'No' box is the best way to continue about their business...

      Ah, but if they then catch you as a spy/terrorist they can slap another charge on you - falsifying information on an official document (or whatever it might be called) ;)

    9. Re:Sad by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know this is an international forum, so I hope you're NOT from the USA when I explain that 1600 Pen Ave is the address of the White House in Washington, DC. I doubt that Bush has had the latex glove treatment on the OP's account...

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    10. Re:Sad by bhima · · Score: 3, Funny

      And that he hasn't is crushingly depressing.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    11. Re:Sad by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If next time you enter China the border officers did decide they are going to take your laptop away, what could you do about it?

      What could you do if your laptop gets taken at the US border? File a complaint? Woot.

      Chiming in with the GP here, I feel much safer and much better treated going into China than going into the US. There I am treated as though I am an actual person, here I am treated as though I am an annoyance.

      If DHS gets their way, we'll be treated worse than that. DHS wants to require all airline passengers to wear a taser bracelet

    12. Re:Sad by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that the dangerous kind of terrorist or spy will have had enough training to know that ticking the 'No' box is the best way to continue about their business...

      Because the moment the Feds find evidence that you lied when you ticked "no", you are in the country illegally.

    13. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience has been exactly opposite. The US (where I am a citizen) lets me through easily and I've gotten the rough treatment in Panama, Columbia and Argentina. And I got grilled upon entry AND exit in Cambodia simply because of my 2-year old Columbian visa.

      Get over it people - The US treatment is decent and appropriate. I do a lot of international travel and the US is by far and away the easist. Although I do have to agree with the China comments, in general they are very good and efficient too.

    14. Re:Sad by slyguy135 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is the case that the Chinese are more polite than the Americans at the border, but is this what really matters? I am just trying to point out that the Chinese government is more than capable of similarly awful acts against their own citizens as the Americans do to theirs. (Did you stop to wonder how the locals are treated at the border? Aren't you even a little glad you're a laowai with a laowai passport?)

      To make it more on-topic for the mods and the Gods: Truecrypt should be used whether you're going to the US or to the PRC. Can we agree on that? :)

    15. Re:Sad by slyguy135 · · Score: 1

      I'm not American, and have never touched cocaine, but thanks for making me laugh too :)

      (And I wasn't talking about terrorists either, so your comment totally confused me... For that matter, I am interested in what drugs you yourself take and would like to subscribe to them).

    16. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the reason they have been hassling you so much the last few years is because you have been mocking them by using a fake address they are sure to know is fake?

      Would it hurt for you to show a little respect if you expect to receive some in return?

    17. Re:Sad by BlowHole666 · · Score: 1

      There I am treated as though I am an actual person

      Well duh China has like 600 billion people of course they treat you better they have more people to practice on.

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    18. Re:Sad by suffe · · Score: 1

      You might not have had a problem with 1600 Pennsylvania ave for the past six years, but that is missing the point. The day they do have a problem with you, they will get you for providing false information. Like all the other stupid questions, they don't try to keep you from lying. It fills the formal need to do things later on when there is vague suspicions of something or other.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    19. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we'reon the subject of filling in forms; have you seen the Nonimigrant Visa form (DS-156, https://evisaforms.state.gov/) visitors have to fill in?
      Check out section 38:
      Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

      So, does the US government actually think they're gonna catch terrorists with that question:
      - Haha, I'm an evil terrorist with the perfect plan to crush America.
      - "Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization...?"
      - Dang!

      Also, if you check who's on the US government list of terrorist organizations you'll find folks like Nelson Mandela and ANC. How's that for irony?
      I guess Dalai Lama should check if he's supposed to wear a big "T" label when he's in the US as well.

      - Peder

    20. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone works for the US government, pulls some CEO's laptop at the boarder for "inspection" and gets free access to all the company financials, would they do the right thing? How many semi-intelligent people wouldn't be tempted to start buying stock options or call their best friend with a really good "tip"?

      This is why we do allow semi-intelligent people to work for the US government.

    21. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. for going on 6 years and no one has so much a blinked.

      With the american educational system being what it is, I guess nobody at the customs has any clue what 1600 Pennsylvania ave. is.
      They probably think it's somewhere in Pennsylvania!

      Just don't add Washington DC to the line. Someone might get a flashback from geography class:
      "Aha! Washington is way up north-west and Pennsylvania is on the east! Johnsson, we have a terrorist here!"

      - Peder

    22. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get by selling weapons.

    23. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they then catch you as a spy/terrorist they can slap another charge on you

      Yes, and I'm sure those extra three months to your lifetime sentence will be devastating. Devastating!

      No, the real reason is that accordig to the Geneva terrorist convention (which by the way is the one USA acctualy abides to, not the other lame Geneva convention that interfers with Gitmo) you are not allowed to lie to the authorities when planning to commit terrorist acts.

      - Peder

    24. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person living there might very well have been through quite a rough time the last 6-7 years because of you

      No, because on 1600 Penn. ave. The Decider latex gloves you!

      There's a reason dick and bush rules the free world y'know...

      - Peder

    25. Re:Sad by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      My own personal theory is that when everyone with half a brain in their head began attending university and pursuing more cerebral careers the potential hiring pool for the border gestapo was relegated to an ever shrinking pool of lower IQ sheriff Jim Bob types who take their jobs entirely too seriously and enjoy roughing up the "suits" who, in their minds, earn too much money, have too many nice things, and generally remind them of all of the things which they are not or do not have.

    26. Re:Sad by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but his story wasn't really the sort of subjective hypothesizing that you can accuse of "drinking the kool-aid." He said he HAS been through both countries and he HAS had the experience that HE PERSONALLY is treated better on the Chinese side of things than the US when it comes to this particular kind of activity. Either he's telling the truth and the story is accurate, or he's making it up, but "fanboyism" doesn't really come into the picture.

      Don't get me wrong. China's not the best of places by a long shot. But, sadly, in a lot of ways, neither is my own country anymore. Fascism is well on its way, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, and the only embarrassing or dangerous activity is to let those decorations blind you from what's behind them.

    27. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly. If someone works for the US government, pulls some CEO's laptop at the boarder for "inspection" and gets free access to all the company financials, would they do the right thing? How many semi-intelligent people wouldn't be tempted to start buying stock options or call their best friend with a really good "tip"? Even if they SEC investigated, they would never find the link.

      Although theoretically a real danger, there is no practical exploit to this vulnerability as no semi-intelligent people are known to work for the US government.

    28. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over the last several years, I've always been treated very respectfully inside China and going to and from. It is in the US, my own country, where I'm treated as if I'm already guilty.

      Yes. In fascist China, they are respectful when they treat you as if you have no rights. In the US, they are not. Huge difference.

    29. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have a point? It was lost behind the completely irrelevant attempt at humor...

    30. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe they have blinked but since the address is what it is, it would only be reasonable they went to 1600 Pen. ave. with their latex gloves. The person living there might very well have been through quite a rough time the last 6-7 years because of you, and you wouldn't even know it.

      For god's sake, somebody mod parent funny quick, so the fucking slashdot mensas can quit explaining his own joke to him!

    31. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moment the Feds find evidence that you lied when you ticked "no" to being a terrorist, the fact that you are in the country illegally is probably the least of their problems.

      - Peder

    32. Re:Sad by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Another thing I find complete asinine is that little form you fill out saying where you are going stay while you are in the US. I've been staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. for going on 6 years and no one has so much a blinked.

      I'm sure they want you to lie on the form. The laws in the US are setup so everyone is afoul of them in some way. That way we can selectively prosecute the people we don't like. Congratulations, you weren't judged an enemy of the government.

    33. Re:Sad by Mozk · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that a year of community service isn't much after life in Gitmo for terrorism.

      --
      No existe.
    34. Re:Sad by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the moment that happens they can deport you, instantly, no questions asked, and interrogate you somewhere else. Somewhere without pesky Bills of Rights.

    35. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but at least you know up front what the rules are"

      No we don't. You can be secretly 'detained' indefinitely and without charge or lawyer representation and they don't even have to admit you are in their possession to anyone.

    36. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing I find complete asinine is that little form you fill out saying where you are going stay while you are in the US.

      I travel routinely between EU, Asia and the US. EU is easy, Asia is easy, US is hard.

      I was always wondering why they have these questions at the veros of the visa waiver ("do you plan to murder someone?", "do you plan to blow off something?", "are you a nazi trying to hide?", "any drugs you plan to smuggle?").

      Than I had a chat with a lawyer who told me that in his country people sue when they get burned by hot coffee which does not have a clear "ATTENTION - this cofee is hot. You should be careful when you drink it 'cause you can get burns. It is HOT, HOT like hell so do not drink it for 90 minutes, till it gest kinda less HOT. HOT HOT HOT - be careful. You are warned. Do not sue us").

      So someone may come to the US and think that blowing up a tower is, say, OK. Now they are warned.

    37. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, the warnings are there because the coffee isn't "hot", it's ridiculously, dangerously hot "because it smells stronger". Did you know more people buy coffee if they can smell it better?

    38. Re:Sad by catxk · · Score: 1

      Your "informative" mod is what makes it funny.

      --
      Don't be crazy anymore!
  10. Which is better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truecrypt or rubberhose?

  11. This message will self destruct in 5 seconds... by kentrel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Second, it now has the ability to hide an entire operating system, so even if you're forced to reveal your pre-boot password to an adversary, you can give them one that boots into a plausible decoy operating system, with your hidden operating system remaining completely undetectable.

    I hate when my adversaries force me to reveal my pre-boot password. I'm glad there are geeks out there putting together solutions for all us Secret Agents.
    If they could release a version I could use on my watch, it would be perfect

    1. Re:This message will self destruct in 5 seconds... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      does it run linux? If yes they you already can! :D

    2. Re:This message will self destruct in 5 seconds... by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, a lot of comments here refer to hypothetical situations using over-generalized terminology. But worrying about being forced to give out your password is indeed a legitimate concern.

      ebonum describes one example in his "Sad" comment, although his specific concerns probably don't apply to very many of us. A more likely example, however, is if you become the target of a civil suit or a suspect in a criminal case; if (in the US) your computer equipment is seized by law enforcement and they ask for your encryption password, you could face additional criminal charges if you don't give it to them. Now, suppose that you're innocent, or don't feel like rolling over for a tort claim made with malicious intent. Do you really want to hand over all your private data to some cop or investigator who has no business accessing it? It's not as unlikely as you may think.

      So yeah, "adversary" is probably a bad word choice, and those who made references to waterboarding are probably fair targets for sarcasm, but the geeks out there are putting together solutions to meet the valid and reasonable needs of the community.

  12. TrueCrypt License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary says it's not OSI approved, for everyone who's not a lawyer and can't be bothered to read all their license page how does it compare to the likes of GPL and others? Is this why it's not on Ubuntu repos?

    1. Re:TrueCrypt License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TrueCrypt license is far more reasonable and practical.

    2. Re:TrueCrypt License by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Crap like that drives me to drink. Honestly, there are plenty of vetted licenses out there to choose from; pick one. This stupid "not invented here" attitude of some hackers is counterproductive and just plain dumb, particularly when the subject matter isn't typical geek fare. How many lawyers do we have to pay to write almost the same document for no reason other than to feel special?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:TrueCrypt License by crimsun · · Score: 1

      WRT DFSG, the portions in question appear to be III.1 and III.2.

      See also https://launchpad.net/truecrypt-installer/trunk

  13. One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    True crypt is fabulous. But is it good enough to hide a body?

    Hans

    1. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. He'll turn himself in eventually.

    2. Re:One question by cstdenis · · Score: 1

      Only if you format the volume with RiserFS.

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
  14. That might betray the presence of a hidden volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - depending upon the file system.

    For instance, if you used ext3 then mkfs.ext3 is going to put backup super blocks all over your disk. If you then setup a hidden volume later on, some of those backup super blocks are going to get over written. An attacker - to whom you've been forced to reveal your outer volume password - could easily discover that the backup super blocks aren't the same as the real super block and deduce that you're using a hidden volume that you didn't tell them about. You could, when formating, tell mkfs.ext3 not to use any backup super blocks - but that also might look a bit suspicious. Just food for thought.

  15. Suggestion: Truecrypt LiveCD -Stealth- Install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John installs Truecrypt on Windows XP
    Jane installs Truecrypt on Linux

    Bad guy obtains both John and Jane's hard drives.

    What's the first thing the Bad guy's going to notice if he snoops?

    Could it be that he'll find the installation of Truecrypt listed on WinXP or Linux? Or the setup or package installation files somewhere on the drive, whether or not they were deleted or not? And how about the Linux package manager, won't they just see it listed as installed and figure, "Hmm... Truecrypt!"

    The rise in popularity of Truecrypt will now motivate, if it hasn't already, ways to determine whether or not Truecrypt has been installed or was ever present on the drive as a possible indication of being installed. Even a bookmark for Truecrypt in the browser's bookmarks file, if not encrypted, could flag a potential bad guy to the possibility of Truecrypt being installed.

    So what, you say?

    My point is, how about a LiveCD of some sort aimed at installing Truecrypt without leaving any pre-installation or current installation traces? Is this possible? Otherwise, there will always be some traces pointing to Truecrypt for most Truecrypt users.

    1. Re:Suggestion: Truecrypt LiveCD -Stealth- Install by 0xygen · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is discussed in the "plausible deniability" section of the TrueCrypt docs.

      The recommended solution is to ensure you have a plausible use for the existing installation of TrueCrypt, for example some porn or customer records in a separate container, allowing you to deny the existence of the real container.

      This means you do not have to put yourself in a situation where you are denying using TC and one tiny mistake could indicate that you have used TrueCrypt when no visible TC volume is present.

      On the other hand, I'm sure most of the bootable Linux LiveCDs will continue to include TrueCrypt.
      If you want to do it with Windows, use BartPE as discussed in the TrueCrypt FAQ.

    2. Re:Suggestion: Truecrypt LiveCD -Stealth- Install by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      My point is, how about a LiveCD of some sort aimed at installing Truecrypt without leaving any pre-installation or current installation traces? Is this possible?

      I suppose so, but is it desirable? You could certainly build a Linux boot image which would mount all disks and make encryption tools available. But normally, the fact that you're using crypto isn't the secret. The adversary has probably already pulled your email records from Echelon, or issued national security letters to your ISP. They know about your use of cryptography. They just don't know your key.

      At this point they come around to your house at 3am and drag you off somewhere secret for robust interrogation. They'll probably find your crypto-tools CD anyway. They'll definitely find encrypted data on your hard disk. So you might as well install TrueCrypt wholesale and save yourself some inconvenience.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Suggestion: Truecrypt LiveCD -Stealth- Install by Minwee · · Score: 1

      You could always read about exactly that in the TrueCrypt FAQ, or jump directly to the documentation on Traveller Mode. Other people have thought of this sort of thing before, you know.

    4. Re:Suggestion: Truecrypt LiveCD -Stealth- Install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont listen to em, man, they're probably tied to LE and dont want you makin their job harder

  16. I love TruCrypt by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    But... on one machine, the encryption process hangs frequently, and one time I had to restore from a backup. Other than that, it is pretty much flawless. I can get through a few % each time I reboot before it hangs, so eventually I'll have the whole disk encrypted, but it's going to be a pain..

    Anyone know if I can update the version in the middle of a disk encryption? Maybe that'll fix it...

    1. Re:I love TruCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your RAM is probably fucked, which is common with cheap Linux bastards.

    2. Re:I love TruCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your RAM, make sure that the CPU doesn't overheat under load and that the PSU keeps the voltages in the specified ranges under load. In other words: Check your hardware.

  17. Low powered PC by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A not very powerfull small factor PC (some subnotebook barely good enough to run Linux - no need for the latest über-UMPC able to withstand Vista), with which to decrypt the content on arrival seems to be the only current solution.

    At least, as an over-powerful laptop isn't needed, at least this isn't very expensive.

    Also, has TrueCrypt been ported to PDAs ?
    A PDA running TrueCrypt and dual SD+USB hybrids cards (Sandisk and OCZ produce such beasts) seems another even cheaper solution.
    If the data can't be decrypted on the target machine when plugged with the card's USB connector, then plug it into the SD port of the PDA and decrypt data from there.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Low powered PC by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Also, has TrueCrypt been ported to PDAs ?

      Would this even be necessary? I can install and run Truecrypt off of a USB Thumb drive or an SD card on a Win or Lin based PC. If you use a Windows PC to install the Win version of Trucrypt, and then plug the SD card into a Win-based PDA, would it not function normally? Admittedly, I am not well versed on PDA software installation, but it seems like it SHOULD work.

      Anyone tried it yet?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:Low powered PC by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      doesn't Windows Mobile run on architectures other than x86?

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    3. Re:Low powered PC by itsme1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can install and run Truecrypt off of a USB Thumb drive or an SD card on a Win or Lin based PC. If you use a Windows PC to install the Win version of Trucrypt, and then plug the SD card into a Win-based PDA, would it not function normally? Admittedly, I am not well versed on PDA software installation, but it seems like it SHOULD work. Anyone tried it yet?

      I would say "not well versed on PDA software installation" is a major understatement. You manage to confuse yourself by using the ambiguous "Win-based PDA". To put it simply the hardware and software on "Win-based PDA"s has nothing to do with your XP, ok?

  18. "true fellow geeks" by blind+biker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Heh.

    While I guess I can feel some fellowship with other geeks, the Reiser story put a big hunking dent into those ideals. And not because of Reiser's actions, but because of the mindless dolts that defended him in light of all the evidence.

    But to the point: I think I'll be installing TrueCrypt on my Eee PC. If I want to just surf the net or play some games with it, or watch a movie, I can alwas boot from an unencrypted USB drive which will run a bit faster. The little laptop has been traveling with me everywhere lately, and I'd hate to have it stolen, but if it is, it's at least a consolation that my files will be safe from indiscrete views.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  19. Other filesystems could expose hidden volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Other filesystems could expose hidden volumes by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      Thanks very much!

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  20. Breaking volumes by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

    If you've got a 30gb volume with a "hidden" volume inside of it, but 10mb of files in it, can't you tell it's got something there by just dumping 30710mb in it(and it'll fail if it does?)? http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume.php makes that seem unlikely, it looks like you'd just totally fuck up your hidden partition if you wrote to the volume... which makes you wonder how long it'll be until a tool is developed for law enforcement specifically designed to fuck up these volumes.

    --
    www.isoHunt.com
    1. Re:Breaking volumes by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      yes you can kill the hidden volume but once law enforcement is dumping files onto your PC you have bigger problems. if that starts happening then I put my data in truecrypt hidden volumes, hide those in the least significant bit of each pixel of my family photos and take my info to La Resistance.

    2. Re:Breaking volumes by Splab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, if law enforcement "fucked up your volume" as you so nicely put it, they have just destroyed whatever evidence you where trying to hide. So why would anyone using true crypt have a problem with that?

    3. Re:Breaking volumes by mrvan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AFAIK, yes, if you fill the decoy volume it will kill your hidden volume.

      which makes you wonder how long it'll be until a tool is developed for law enforcement specifically designed to fuck up these volumes.

      They can only do that if they've confiscated your laptop *and* acquired your 'decoy' password. At that point, your only concerns are they not getting your data and you being able to deny the data is there in the first place.

      Somebody deleting all your sensitive files is not a bad thing to happen at that point.

    4. Re:Breaking volumes by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      read Hidden OS

      You can use the decoy OS without fear of destroying data in the hidden os.

      F*CK up hidden volumes still is possible, if done on purpose. For that you need a backup anyway looking at the rate laptops are "lost" on airports.

      By the way, a analogy would be that the border police (!) will shoot though the double bottom of your suitcase because you might have something hidden in it.

    5. Re:Breaking volumes by leuk_he · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Breaking volumes by mrogers · · Score: 1

      You know, if law enforcement "fucked up your volume" as you so nicely put it, they have just destroyed whatever evidence you where trying to hide. So why would anyone using true crypt have a problem with that?

      Because it took me a long time to download all that 'evidence' from Usenet in the first place!

    7. Re:Breaking volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious guys will not mess up with original HDD. They will copy it and will play with the copy :)

    8. Re:Breaking volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would be a good thing to happen as the incriminating data would be gone. And you did not even have to nuke it yourself :D

      And if anything... Why would you not keep a backup of the encrypted volume somewhere else? Hell... I have multiple backups of all my important files.. And I just have a mild touch of backup-paranoia :-p

    9. Re:Breaking volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if law enforcement "fucked up your volume" as you so nicely put it, they have just destroyed whatever evidence you where trying to hide. So why would anyone using true crypt have a problem with that?

      "evidence"??
      Perhaps what I'm trying to hide isn't illegal or immoral or whatever. It may be important business documents that I just don't want the border guards to be looking at. Perhaps I'm responsible for outsourcing their jobs.

    10. Re:Breaking volumes by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Somebody deleting all your sensitive files is not a bad thing to happen at that point.

      Perhaps, if you have a backup and are able to access it before you need the data - but if that is the case, why were you taking the risk of travelling with the data (albeit encrypted) in the first place? For law enforcement/customs, such a tactic could be used (after making their own backup) to induce the suspect to reveal that they have a second volume there. If no hidden volume exists, then no harm is done by filling up the volume with dummy files and deleting them again, but if there is a hidden volume, it is possible that the suspect's reaction as their hidden data is destroyed will give them away. Even if you do have a backup, it could be difficult to not react to such a scenario when put on the spot.

    11. Re:Breaking volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the data is that important, surely you have backups.

    12. Re:Breaking volumes by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

      Because they'd make a bit for bit copy before doing any work.

      --
      www.isoHunt.com
    13. Re:Breaking volumes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, if you have a backup and are able to access it before you need the data - but if that is the case, why were you taking the risk of travelling with the data (albeit encrypted) in the first place?

      I think you're missing the point. At this point you don't have the copy of the data any more and may even be in custody. The most important thing right now is that the data is not discovered, and that you get to go home with your testicles intact (assuming you have them now.)

      if there is a hidden volume, it is possible that the suspect's reaction as their hidden data is destroyed will give them away.

      It's not really SOP to do this shit in front of the suspect. There's a very relaxed guy picking through your data in an air-conditioned room. He's subjecting it to all the analysis tools he's amassed over the years, and he's not even thinking about you at this stage (Until he finds your porn collection... freak)

      If you have some critical data, and you don't have a backup, you are an idiot anyway, and you have basic fundamental problems in your life more pressing even than torture: sheer stupidity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Breaking volumes by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      but if there is a hidden volume, it is possible that the suspect's reaction as their hidden data is destroyed will give them away. Even if you do have a backup, it could be difficult to not react to such a scenario when put on the spot.

      But what reaction? In that situation I would be having to hide my relief that they are destroying my incriminating (albiet encrypted) data for me. Only a moron would be cringing. I guess either cringing or relief could be suspicious to an investigator observing you closely. I think most people smart enough to be using truecrypt hidden partitions with secure passwords in the first place would also be smart enough to not react greatly to anything they say or do. Unless they tell you you are going to prison. I think it would make you seem like a sociopath if you don't seem at least a little depressed about heading off to the Guantanamo Detention Camp for some "re-education".

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    15. Re:Breaking volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gave you a +5 insightful? The first thing ANY law enforcement team does when they get a confiscated computer is to do a 1:1 backup of your hard drives for analysis, and then keep the original drive in safekeeping. Or, in the case of temporary confiscation, they give your computer/drives back to you, but they still have a copy, and can make countless more.

      And when they analyze your dive, they analyze it with purpose-built software in a 'hands off' fashion, NOT by booting into it. They can 'screw up' as many times as they need to in order to get at some vital information. And due to the nature of current versions of TrueCrypt, they WILL be able to tell after some fiddling around that a TrueCrypt partition at least exists.

      And this doesn't even run into another issue with TrueCrypt, the fact that they hint at the 'devious' uses for keeping information secret even after surrendering a password on their own fucking website, A prosecutor could probably safely infer that no, you ARE withholding a password simply by the mere fact that you are using TrueCrypt in the first place as opposed to any number of other encryption solutions available. Of course, they have no way to prove that the password you just gave them was a bait password, but they can safely infer that whatever you tell them is a lie until they get the evidence of what they are looking for.

    16. Re:Breaking volumes by BigGar' · · Score: 1

      I believe, that's not quite accurate.
      They would still need to be in possession of the hardware, but they would not need your password, they just need to overwrite the white space on the drive from their perspective. Truecrypt has no provisions to prevent overwriting of an encrypted volume.
      But why would law enforcement do this, they want to see the encrypted data if it exists, not destroy it. It could be an accident, but then they should make a sector level copy of the hard drive, including white space before doing "anything" with the drive. So they would always have the original to go back to and to submit to the court as evidence. Copies can be used by law enforcement to search through, you almost never touch the original.

      --


      Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
    17. Re:Breaking volumes by trifish · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, yes, if you fill the decoy volume it will kill your hidden volume.

      And yet again, yet another incorrect statement modded +5. We really need "Incorrect" moderation.

      From: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-operating-system

      "You should use the decoy operating system as frequently as you use your computer. Ideally, you should use it for all activities that do not involve sensitive data. ... Note that you can save data to the decoy system partition anytime without any risk that the hidden volume will get damaged (because the decoy system is not installed in the outer volume -- see below)."

    18. Re:Breaking volumes by man_ls · · Score: 1

      When you mount the external volume in "hidden-sector-aware" mode, you give it both passwords for the outside and inside container. TrueCrypt decrypts the inside container headers, finds out which sectors it occupies, then configures its filesystem driver to deny writes in those sectors.

      If you're mounting your external volume without awareness, it probably means you're doing so under duress and having that data destroyed by an errant overwrite is preferable to keeping it secure. TrueCrypt would happily allow the entire drive (including the area occupied by the hidden volume) to be overwritten if it doesn't know it needs to keep a lookout.

      The only sector of any volume that is totally the real weak point of the system is the volume headers. If those are lost, you're screwed. But, you can make encrypted backups of the volume headers as well, so it's not all bad.

    19. Re:Breaking volumes by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      -- see below)."

      Maybe you should have read further...

      Safety and Security Precautions Pertaining to Hidden Operating Systems

      As a hidden operating system resides in a hidden TrueCrypt volume, a user of a hidden operating system should follow all of the security precautions that apply to normal hidden TrueCrypt volumes. These precautions, as well as additional precautions pertaining specifically to hidden operating systems, are listed in the subsection Security Precautions Pertaining to Hidden Volumes.

      WARNING: If you do not protect the hidden volume (for information on how to do so, refer to the section Protection of Hidden Volumes Against Damage), do not write to the outer volume (note that the decoy operating system is not installed in the outer volume). Otherwise, you may overwrite and damage the hidden volume (and the hidden operating system within it)!

      If all the instructions in the wizard have been followed and if the security precautions mentioned in the subsection Security Precautions Pertaining to Hidden Volumes are followed, it will be impossible to prove that the hidden volume and hidden operating system exist, even when the outer volume is mounted or when the decoy operating system is decrypted or started.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    20. Re:Breaking volumes by trifish · · Score: 1

      Do you at least read what you quote?

      The quote says:
      note that the decoy operating system is not installed in the outer volume

      Do you get it now?

    21. Re:Breaking volumes by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You're right. My mistake quota is filled for the day... now onward... :(

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  21. Independence day? by Atti+K. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While most of the US was celebrating Independence Day, the true fellow geeks over at TrueCrypt released version 6.0 of TrueCrypt over the long weekend.

    That might not be just a coincidence.

    --
    .sig: No such file or directory
  22. NSA backdoor? by Cur8or · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does anyone know if the backdoor has been made a little more user friendly? The current one takes like 3 minutes to decrypt without the password.

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    1. Re:NSA backdoor? by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anyone know if the backdoor has been made a little more user friendly? The current one takes like 3 minutes to decrypt without the password.

      I don't know, why don't you examine the source code for yourself? You can download it here: http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads2.php Or you could just quit trolling and spreading FUD.

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

    2. Re:NSA backdoor? by Cur8or · · Score: 0

      I was hoping that it would seem too ridiculous to be taken seriously and would then be assumed to be a joke, not FUD. I should have known you security people dont have a sense of humor. I thought the whole "penetration testing"-thing was a joke. Guess not.

      --
      Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    3. Re:NSA backdoor? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Care to point to some proof? My google returns nothing.

    4. Re:NSA backdoor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on what data you're liberating. If your target is using one of these new "hidden" operating systems, it does take longer. That's the price we have to pay to placate the sheep. But if it's a standard file container, it will use multiple cores, thus speeding up the great justice against the unpatriotic who feel the need to hide from us.

    5. Re:NSA backdoor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a legitimate question that I have. Who has vetted the source code? For that matter who knows and will vouch for the authors? I'll admit that I'm more concerned with a flawed implementation of the crypto that is attackable than paranoia about a backdoor.

    6. Re:NSA backdoor? by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you were joking, maybe sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from FUD?

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

  23. It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough... by mrboyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have started using TrueCrypt a few months back after my laptop got stolen. I keep two encrypted files on my laptop, one contains my personal stuff like passport scan, bank information etc. and the other the work related important documents such as internal&confidential documents, client information etc. I have buried those files in the system folder and given them name that could pass for system temp files.

    I keep a copy of both on a USB key drive and on an external hard drive which never leave my home. As well as a non-encrypted copy because I'm still wondering what happens to that encrypted file if I happen to have a fucked up cluster on the drive at some point.

    The rational for using encryption is not that I am afraid of the local authorities, there is nothing on my computer that would cause me any long lasting trouble, despite the fact that I live and work in a limited freedom area (Middle East), but simply to avoid opportunity theft.

    For example I can't recall how many time one of my clients or partner handed me a usb key drive containing all his companies financial statement, bank account number, internal price list with profit margin, internal memo, personal info and the wifey's naked picture so that I could copy them a few documents and then forgot about the keydrive because we kept chatting.

    Sometime I too need to get some files from them and I don't want to look like I'm watching them while they dig around my keydrive. I now know that everything a casual observer should not see is encrypted so I don't mind throwing my key drive over the table to someone I don't know.

    I don't understand the paranoid people here who believes in plausible deniability, decoy drive and other such thing. I also wonder if the same people only use their computers in safe room with controlled EM environment and bullet proof shade.
    I didn't know either that so many people carried state secrets around international airports. To those I will say that if the NSA/FSB/Interpol/MI4/Mossad/Mafia or even the local police wants the content of your drive they will get it. period. It doesn't matter what you do. Unless of course you also work for one of the aforementioned in which case you might have been trained to accept that your life is worth less than the content of said drive.

    I have never been subjected to physical or psychological torture (aside from clients and some ex-gf of course) but I am not Jack Bauer and I would "come clean" very quickly. I would give the real password, not the decoy, because I believe consequences would certainly worsen my situation if my interrogators were not convinced.

    I am also pretty sure that the simple sentence: "The accused has so far always refused to give his encrypted drive password." would certainly help convincing a jury beyond "reasonable doubt" (In countries where such thing even exists).
    Some people here should start to seriously look at themselves and wonder if what they are trying to hide is really worth it or if it's just about mommy not finding their downloadable girlfriend picture collection.

  24. Non-geek friendly by Mick+Malkemus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not very geeky, but I can use this program. The instructions, which are 117 pages, are pretty straightforward. With hackers (they type I don't respect) becoming more sophisticated by the day, it's nice to know it will take them many years to break my financial information. If they have that type of time, they're probably behind bars.

    1. Re:Non-geek friendly by RPoet · · Score: 1

      To say that it would take a cracker "many years" to break TrueCrypt's encryption is a gigantic understatement. He would not have enough lifetime to do it (and there probably aren't enough years left on Earth to do it, anyway).

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Non-geek friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet. Thanks for that clarification!

  25. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by skolima · · Score: 1

    Why?

  26. They'd also get in trouble by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    For two reasons:

    1) The proper procedure is to make a verified copy, and then work on the copy. Many reasons not the least of which being that if you screw up accidentally you can make another copy. You don't go mucking around on the original drive.

    2) Law enforcement isn't welcome to just destroy property because they feel like it. They can't burn down your house and say "Well we thought there might be drugs in it, even though we never found any." Likewise they can't just screw up your data for shits and grins. That'd be a great way to get sued. You claim that the truecrypt volume in fact contained important research documents that were worth millions, not illegal data. They can't prove otherwise since they purposefully deleted it.

    Also this same sort of thing applies hidden volume or not, encryption or not. If you have a normal truecrypt file, they can simply overwrite it with random data, even if they lack the password. They can do this to any file, encrypted or unencrypted. The only risk a hidden volume has is if someone has the password to the normal volume, doesn't know there's a hidden volume, and accidentally writes data in there so it gets overwritten.

    They'd have no reason at all to do that. It wouldn't be helpful in an investigation, would probably get them in trouble, and would be way more effort than just smashing the harddrive with a hammer if they wanted to prevent you from getting your data back.

    1. Re:They'd also get in trouble by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement isn't welcome to just destroy property because they feel like it. They can't burn down your house and say "Well we thought there might be drugs in it, even though we never found any." Likewise they can't just screw up your data for shits and grins. That'd be a great way to get sued.

      Law enforcement/prosecutors ***WILL*** go to great lengths to fuck you up if they don't like your face (like you do something they don't like, but they are unable to nail you as hard as they'd want for it). They do not care about being sued because as public servants, they are essentially beyond responsibility. If ever they are sued, they will not foot the bill, the public will, so they really don't care about that.

    2. Re:They'd also get in trouble by westlake · · Score: 1
      Likewise they can't just screw up your data for shits and grins. That'd be a great way to get sued.

      strike one.

      go to court and broadcast to the world that you are running truecrypt.

      a fact to be filed for future reference.

      strike two.

      your laptop comes in to the police station with 20GB of free space, it leaves the police station with 20GB of free space.

      plausible deniability works both ways.

      strike three.

      if your truecrypt passwords still function, you expose to the court what remains after the five-alarm-fire in your porn stash.

    3. Re:They'd also get in trouble by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      2) Law enforcement isn't welcome to just destroy property because they feel like it. They can't burn down your house and say "Well we thought there might be drugs in it, even though we never found any." Likewise they can't just screw up your data for shits and grins. That'd be a great way to get sued. You claim that the truecrypt volume in fact contained important research documents that were worth millions, not illegal data. They can't prove otherwise since they purposefully deleted it.

      Not if they kept a clean image and altered the original. If you claimed there was a second volume with valuables, they could compel you to produce key to decrypt it on their unaltered image.

  27. konsole by Dencrypt · · Score: 1

    So. Have they reintegrated support for terminalwork? As I remember, I still have to use 4.3a to make it work properly in a non-GUI -serverenvironment.

    The strange thing is though that you can actually run it in a terminal environment but you can't really create any volumes...

  28. SEATEC ASTRONOMY by Cyberfed · · Score: 1

    No more secrets Marty.

  29. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    got cock?

  30. Here's the non-spam link, dickhead by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Informative
  31. Who said it's torture-proof? by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have to worry about it being torture-proof, you're almost certainly dead anyway.

    All it needs to be, for most people, is audit-proof.

    And for that you need a business case for having it. Porn is probably not a good choice.

  32. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What do you think pissed Hans off?

  33. Sweet Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Simple reason why I had seeks to an area that looks empty, it's because I *used* to have files there before I deleted them, then since I'm savvy enough to use Truecrypt, I ran one of those wipe programs that overwrites it with garbage, hence what you see if you look at the drive forensically, garbage.

    Explain why that free space is never used. It "looks empty", yet if I try to fill up the drive, lo and behold, that "empty" space just won't get used. HHMMMMM, I wonder if something is afoot.

    1. Re:Sweet Jesus by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      False.

      If you are on the first "partition" and fill the disk, your second "partition" will be overwritten and left unusable except if you enter the second password when opening the first "partition", then truecrypt will say that the first one is full and will refuse to overwrite the second one.

      Then in front of the investigator, you send the first password, he will be able to create as much files has he want to the excess of overwriting your precious datas. But will be left unable to says: "see I can't write here then there must be a second "partition"".

    2. Re:Sweet Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it in fact get wiped out? Or does it get blocked from writing?
      What could block it from being written to?

      I don't think i have ever seen this anywhere.

    3. Re:Sweet Jesus by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would get filled, wiping out the data in the hidden partition. there is a feature to prevent this, but it's off by default and can automatically shut itself off after you unmount the hidden partition.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Sweet Jesus by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect.

      The hidden volume is not protected. Filling the outer volume with data will destroy the hidden volume. TrueCrypt has a feature which allows this protection, but to activate it, you must know the password to the hidden volume.

      If you are forced to reveal the password to the outer volume, there is nothing to prove the existence of a hidden volume. Since you have plausible deniability you are able to claim that no hidden partition exists. Once the outer volume is mounted, "filling up the drive" as you suggested will use all the "empty" space and the hidden partition will be destroyed. Hence this approach would not only be completely useless but it would actually be counter-productive: the contents of the hidden volume would then be gone.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:Sweet Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clone is correct - by default, if you write to the outer volume after the hidden has been created, TrueCrypt will fill up the space with your data, stopping only when all free space is taken up. No error messages or warnings are given, unless you have enabled the option to protect the hidden volume, which of course you wouldn't do in the presence of an adversary. TrueCrypt behaves just as you would expect it - a user would no doubt have their hidden data silently overwritten than the presence of hidden data revealed.

      And of course, being the moron I am, I have junked a couple of hidden volumes by doing precisely that. Except I didn't notice till a while later when I tried to mount the hidden volume...!

  34. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by IBBoard · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the paranoid people here who believes in plausible deniability, decoy drive and other such thing. I also wonder if the same people only use their computers in safe room with controlled EM environment and bullet proof shade.
    I didn't know either that so many people carried state secrets around international airports. To those I will say that if the NSA/FSB/Interpol/MI4/Mossad/Mafia or even the local police wants the content of your drive they will get it. period. It doesn't matter what you do. Unless of course you also work for one of the aforementioned in which case you might have been trained to accept that your life is worth less than the content of said drive.

    It does seem like it's often taken further than is realistic. If you want true plausible deniability then you'd want a custom app, not an app that is known to have hidden areas.

    I see it as more useful for personal secrets - e.g. someone keeps their financial documents "secret" in the outer layer, but then hides blackmailable material (affairs, pornographic preferences etc) and other things they don't want people to see when they reveal the outer layer. Different people will, of course, have different combinations of what they want to put in each layer.

    Personally, I just use TrueCrypt because work says I've got to do it to take source code off-site securely.

  35. Detecting Truecrypt. by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Normally, unused blocks on a drive have whatever data pattern the formatting software puts there (typically something like "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..." or "55AAAA5555AAAA55..."), or remnants of other files, or parts of free block lists and empty extents and the like. If you have a big chunk of random noise in the middle that's an indication that you've got an encrypted volume in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Detecting Truecrypt. by BountyX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, but how can you tell if the encrypted volume contains another encrypted volume (the hidden volume). That's the thing, the hidden volum eis designed to be encapsulated in the encrypted volume. Plausible deniability is only offered in the hidden volume functionality.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    2. Re:Detecting Truecrypt. by trifish · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, I'd mod you down as Misleading if that was possible. If you at least bothered to read something about it before commenting, you would know that you are wrong.

      From, the TrueCrypt documentation at http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume.php :

      "Even when the outer volume is mounted, it is impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not*, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created** and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data."

    3. Re:Detecting Truecrypt. by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Normally, unused blocks on a drive have whatever data pattern the formatting software puts there (typically something like "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..." or "55AAAA5555AAAA55..."), or remnants of other files, or parts of free block lists and empty extents and the like. If you have a big chunk of random noise in the middle that's an indication that you've got an encrypted volume in there somewhere.

      What you said is correct. You have to keep in mind however that a hidden Truecrypt container is placed inside a normal container. This means that the "formatting software" is Truecrypt, and the data pattern that Truecrypt puts there when it formats the normal container is a big chunk of random noise. Regardless of whether you have a hidden container inside the normal one or not, the unused space will be filled with random noise. There is no way to tell by inspection whether the random noise is just that or a hidden volume.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    4. Re:Detecting Truecrypt. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Try encrypting a big file full of nulls sometime, and see what you get. Hint: it's not a file full of all the same character.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Detecting Truecrypt. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      It's even easier to tell whether TrueCrypt is installed by checking for a TrueCrypt installation. The software doesn't exactly hide itself. A big block of noise only indicates that at some point in the past there have been some encrypted data on the drive, or some efficiently encoded data you can't recognize (e.g. some obscure video codec).

  36. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by Pebble · · Score: 1

    Because not revealing the password is another crime altogether.

    First Use of RIPA to Demand Encryption Keys

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/14/2335202

  37. Alright, alright. by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    It was a joke. Just a silly little joke. My bad.

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    1. Re:Alright, alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's any consolation, I thought it was pretty funny.

    2. Re:Alright, alright. by Cur8or · · Score: 0

      Well, thanks there Coward.

      --
      Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    3. Re:Alright, alright. by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I have no sense of humor today, sorry :-p

  38. A feature unmentioned by BountyX · · Score: 1

    I think one of the most unmentioned benefits to TrueCrypt is the ease of creating secured backups. Password protected zips just dont cut it anymore and with backup tapes of companies always getting stolen these days, it just makes sense to backup true crypt containers =). just like backing up a file, I love it. Perhaps the biggest issue with this is the unused portion of the partition, but the convinience for security vs. unused partition data is a good tradeoff in my opinion.

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  39. Multi-core support by technienerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one seems to be commenting about the new features of this release but simply on TrueCrypt in general. Am I the only one excited about the multi-core/processor support? Finally a piece of systems level software that scales with the number of cores! Makes getting a multi-core processor all the more worthwhile.

  40. Works in FreeBSD by Fweeky · · Score: 2, Informative

    Using the patches in the TrueCrypt 5 port, TrueCrypt 6 builds and appears to run fine on FreeBSD \o/

    1. Re:Works in FreeBSD by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I was worried I'd have to go back Linux after having just recently flaunted my elitist superiority as a BSD user over my Linux-using friends. Err... I also prefer FreeBSD for other reasons, too, of course >.> But yeah, thanks.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
  41. To make it torture proof by davegravy · · Score: 1

    The context here is for data stored on portable devices, correct (I didn't RTFA)? Presumably there's a copy of the sensitive data in physically more secure place?

    So why not have a password which when given makes Truecrypt to write 0s over the hidden encrypted partition? They never knew it was there, and no amount of torturing will produce the information after this point.

    Tantamount to biting your own tongue off in a torture session. The sudden HD light activity and the sound of the hard drive grinding away might earn you a few extra bruises though.

    1. Re:To make it torture proof by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Any interrogators worth anything will image the partition/files.

      And there's no such thing as torture proof - whether they'll get the info or not doesn't depend on you. The only thing that will influence the outcome is determination of your interrogators (and if they are determined enough you WILL gave in).

      The only thing you have control over is how long it'll take, which is inverselly proportional to the amount of physical and emotional trauma you'll end up with.

      The best way is to prevent them from getting suspicious. And that means accesing valuable data over the net in anonymous fashion once you're there, or keeping them in encrypted container BUT ALSO keeping the container on something that's easy to hide/dispose, like a microSD card.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:To make it torture proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's no such thing as torture proof

      Sure there is... a gram of C4 wired to the pain-sensing lobe of the brain...

  42. An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by jockeys · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear paranoid freaks,
    if you are so concerned about getting captured and tortured for normal/hidden/hidden(hidden)/hidden(hidden(hidden)))/ad naseum passphrases, then quit having digital copies of your stuff in the first place.

    99% of the TrueCrypt userbase is just fine using it on jump drives to keep stuff secure from the guy who finds it when you lose it on the train/plane/whatever.

    Quit making up impossible "movie scenarios" (there, I used a Schneierism, you HAVE to respect me now!) about how gov't agents are going to come in black helicopters for your fetish vids and the 200 page backstory you wrote for a character you rolled in middle school. No one cares.

    Yours truly,
    -Reality.

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    1. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 0, Troll

      So don't use it asshole. You're not forced to setting this functionality up on install.

      Or are you actually enough of a dick to be saying 'well most people don't need to use a feature, so it shouldn't be there' - regardless of the fact that it's fucking optional and it has VERY REAL uses?

      God damn. Just don't use it and quit bitching. When did anybody make it your problem what other people did?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by jockeys · · Score: 1

      I like the hidden volume feature. I was responding, albeit sarcastically, to those who say it isn't enough. Sounds like we're on the same side... did you rtfpost?

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    3. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget that the US is currently waging war on its own citizens in the form of the War on Drug Users. There are many people out there who are doing nothing but growing plants and consuming them in the privacy of their own home, for whom there is a real risk of government agents with black helicopters taking them and their data. That is the reality we live in.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      It's nice, to live in a country where you don't really have to be anally paranoid about things like that, yes? I invite you to spend some time in China (or any other such country) doing anything "subversive" online (like, say for example, uploading images of Tibetans being "pacified" so the rest of the world can know what's going on), without keeping your activities encrypted WITH plausible deniability and a lot of other precautions beside. I'll ask you how it went in twenty years... you know... when you get out of prison.

      Which is all to make the point that in ACTUAL REAL REALITY there are "movie scenarios" where this functionality is vitally important. That 1% you mention who really need it, they're worth consideration.

      (I would have simply accepted your post as a sarcastic joke, but it had been modded "Insightful," so I figured I'd respond to it in kind)

    5. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by jockeys · · Score: 1

      It was half sarcastic, but you make a very valid point. If I was allowed to mod you Interesting, I would.

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    6. Re:An open letter to all the paranoid freaks... by Shihar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you miss the point of things like multiple passwords with volumes hidden in volumes, and it doesn't involve being able to resist torture. Resisting an audit, legal threat, or annoying security agent is a more likely scenario.

      I would be willing to bet that a non-trivial number of people who something illegal on their computer from pirated versions of software, "hacking tools", pirated entertainment, pr0n illegal in one country or another, etc. The ability to effectively resist being compelled (with legal threats, not hot irons) to prove you have it is a valuable thing.

      Even something as simple as not wanting to show a border agent your pr0n collection or hiding sensitive data (corporate, personal, embarrassing foot fetish videos) is enough reason to have two passwords. Instead of putting up a stink about how it is unfair or you can't give up customer information, you shrug, give them a password to a clean drive, and even if they were paranoid enough to clone the entire thing they get nothing but a clean system with data hidden in noise that the NSA would struggle to decrypt. Eh, you could fight it out with the border agent, but I personally would rather smile, comply, and feel secure in knowing my companies data and pr0n of my girlfriend is still sitting snuggling amongst some random noise unknown to the border agent.

      If you want to venture off into the slightly more paranoid realm, realize that you might not be encrypting for today. You might be encrypting to defend against an entity (government, corporate, UFOs, whatever) in the future. Forget applying laws retroactively, just imagine over the course of your life, how many computer laws have you broken. If someone was to go back and nail you for each and every single one, how many years in jail and millions of dollars would you be on the hook for? What laws have you violated that are legal in one places and illegal in another? A 16 year old kid who has watched two girls and one cup, has a 2 gig MP3 collection, a foot fetish pr0n collection, and a pirated version of Half Life is probably technically on the hook somewhere for a stoning and a 2 billion dollar fine.

      There are good solid paranoid (OMG the black helicopters) and non-paranoid (I really don't want this border agent to see client information and my wife's nude pictures) reasons to go for crypto. Personally, I think that if you are crossing national borders and have anything on your computer you wouldn't feel happy showing to any client or any security agent of any nation you travel to, you are being a little foolish.

  43. Where is the code? who are the developers? by elucido · · Score: 1

    One thing I notice about truecrypt is, it seems that the code is hard to find yet it claims to be open source. It's not GNU. And there seems to be no public list of the developers.

    It's good software though. In my opinion it's the sorta software which should be built the linux kernel so that it plugs into the filesystem by default.

    1. Re:Where is the code? who are the developers? by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Bottom of the downloads page. Download source, listed under "More Downloads". Not hard to find at all.

  44. Exactly how is TrueCrypt's license not OSI complia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damned short title field ...

    Exactly how is TrueCrypt's license not OSI compliant?

    What provisions make it not OSI compliant?

  45. What about rootkits and backdoors? by elucido · · Score: 1

    Suppose you use Windows, or just an unsecure Linux? How does Truecrypt protect your laptop if you go online?

    Truecrypt is awesome if you install it on a computer which never goes online and therefore stays immune to remote attacks. I suggest that you keep all your financial information and critical data on a computer which never goes online, and if you must, transfer it to a computer which goes online in the most secure way possible, such as through https or ssh.

  46. What about the rootkits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rootkits can simply sniff your passwords as you type them.

    And when you use closed source software there is usually a keylogger/rootkit built in. There may even be rootkits in your video drivers!

    1. Re:What about the rootkits? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

      More worryingly, there can be rootkits in your LiveCD.

      One of the Vista activation hacks actually use a boot-time module that stays resident and patches Vista. If your malware is targeted well enough, you patch the BIOS, make it load the rootkit, then boot off the LiveCD, then look for the Linux and Windows keyboard drivers.

      If it's not your machine, it's not safe... and maybe unsafe even then.

  47. So we have more cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we have more cores on CPUs, but we're spreading programs more evenly across those cores... aren't we just going to end up where we began, only with a lot of complex overhead? Instead of having just one core that can do all these computations? Or does that mean more of a software scheduling problem and more by-hand optimizations? I'm confused...

    1. Re:So we have more cores by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Are you somehow deficient?
      CPUs arent going multicore because its cool to have more than one core, but to get fucking work fucking done.
      The whole point of the thing (as you surely didnt notice) is to spread your applications over as many cores as they can use in any way.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  48. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I don't mind throwing my key drive over the table to someone I don't know.

    Big nerd alert, but I carry two of 'em, they're super small now, after all. I have one for me, and one disposable recyclable that can be a flash bios installer or an xbox memory card or whatever it needs to be. Amusingly enough, I use them often enough for this to be useful, but only just.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Truecrypt should be used on offline machines only. by elucido · · Score: 1

    As a security measure, use truecrypt on a machine which NEVER accesses the internet. You can call it a data server or you can call it a computer not connected to the outside world.

    You probably don't want to store your sensitive information on a laptop which connects to the internet. It wont take long for some hackers to download the information off your truecrypt encrypted laptop using the rootkit they installed or even the rootkit built into Windows, or that last CD you bought from Sony.

  50. You have to worry more about rootkits. by elucido · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyones going to crack AES. I don't think anyones going to true, government or criminal.

    It's a lot easier to simply sniff your password as you type it in than to crack AES. That's the problem with passwords, they leave you open to side channel attacks, and if you use a password and an internet connection it leaves you open to rootkits.

  51. If you are worried about the NSA backdoor. by elucido · · Score: 1

    Don't use Truecrypt in Windows.

  52. Do you access the net from your work computer? by elucido · · Score: 1

    If you access the net, truecrypt wont do you any good.

    1. Re:Do you access the net from your work computer? by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Yes I do access the net on my work machine, but at that point it is on a work-owned machine and they feel it's secure enough behind various firewalls that it's safe on my machine (and on the SVN server I connect to). Given the company I work for, I'd hope it was reasonably secure as well.

      That's not the point, though. The point was that I use it as an "in transit" system in case the USB hard disk is lost. The company is happy for me to carry stuff around on the condition that it isn't easy for them to lose commercially sensitive/proprietary data if I lose the disk.

  53. Encrypting drives with multiple OS's yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I use the whole disk encryption on a system with multiple OS' yet? If I have windows and linux both installed, I can only encrypt the windows side with truecrypt, and I can't use GRUB.

  54. Actually by elucido · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't you be worried more about the foreign intelligence agencies rather than your own?

  55. We are hiding it from people like you. by elucido · · Score: 1

    It's simple, anyone who wants to know all your secrets probably isn't looking out for your best interest. They want a competitive advantage.

    When you write your business plan or are doing research, the last thing you want is for your competitor to steal all your ideas and work and take the credit. There is great financial incentive to keep secrets, because being able to keep a secret is the key to success in the business world as well as in war.

  56. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since I didn't understand anything you just said, and I'm a C# Programmer who has Ubuntu installed on a few machines, I highly doubt the $10/hour lunk at the airport is going to notice...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  57. WindowsCE != WindowsXP but Linux: PDA ~PC by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Would this even be necessary? I can install and run Truecrypt off of a USB Thumb drive or an SD card on a Win or Lin based PC.

    Yes it's necessary, because currently in Windows there's no way to run TrueCrypt unless you have admin privilege on the target machine.

    The original parent wanted to use TrueCrypt to secure data before transporting them (so the loss of the USB key isn't a critical leak) and then being able to retrieve the data from the USB key once arrived at the destination, EVEN if he doesn't have admin access on the machine on which said key is plugged (and thus can't install TrueCrypt from the key).

    If you use a Windows PC to install the Win version of Trucrypt, and then plug the SD card into a Win-based PDA, would it not function normally?

    No. Won't work. The only thing that "Windows CE" and "Windows XP" have in common is having the word "Windows" appearing in their names. As other have pointed out both don't even run on the same architecture (x86, AMD64 and Itanium for WinXP ; ARM, MIPS and SuperH for WinCE).

    So :
    - either you run the usual TrueCrypt on a portable device that runs Windows *XP* (or Linux or BSD or Mac) - this was my first suggestion, anything cheap like an Asus EEE PC or an OLPC is OK.

    - or you use a PDA running Windows CE (or Palm OS, or Symbian, or RIM) and use a TrueCrypt version that was adapted for the differences and recompiled for the processor.

    That was my second suggestion : if there exist a version of TrueCrypt which works on PDA, then the PDA could be used to do the decryption (but stock WinXP software can't run on WinCE).

    Linux is an exception : the Linux running on PDAs (Sharp Zaurus, Nokia Maemo, Trolltech GreenPhone, OpenMoko/FIC NeoRunner, etc...) is much closer to the full Linux running on desktop.
    Usually the graphic interface is different (often the PDAs don't have X-Windows but use special purpose GUIs) but the system are POSIX compliant and any console software usually run as-is after being simply recompiled from source (because the processors are still different and the binaries are different - but the source is the same for console applications).
    So that's the exception to the rule.
    Note: That also true for a lot of different Linux enabled appliace (modem/routers, file servers, etc.) - although lots of them have very limited resource which put a hard top at what you can manage to get run.

    Also, Apple is touting that their desktops' Mac OS X and the iPhone and iPodTouch's OS X are similarly very related, and some developers (like Epocrates who are making medial PDA software) have mentioned that porting their application to the portable OS X was a matter of couple of days.
    On the other hand, I haven't heard the iPhone / iPodTouch having a POSIX-compatible console environment (still hearing that the current SDK imposes limits on what can be done), so I don't know if getting a console application to work on those platforms is a simple matter of recompile.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:WindowsCE != WindowsXP but Linux: PDA ~PC by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      No. Won't work. The only thing that "Windows CE" and "Windows XP" have in common is having the word "Windows" appearing in their names. As other have pointed out both don't even run on the same architecture (x86, AMD64 and Itanium for WinXP ; ARM, MIPS and SuperH for WinCE).

      I've used CE on a Via x86 within the past month, so that assumption's not entirely true.

  58. Another suggestion for text only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try Locknote http://sourceforge.net/projects/locknote or https://www.steganos.com/us/products/home-office/locknote/overview/
    for text only...very good little portable one-file self-encrypting note pad

  59. How about a legit backdoor? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    I would love to use this at work but I can't trust that our users wont forget their passwords. To be able to set a second password to decrypt the content would be very nice. I know that some of the commercial products out there do just this, so I know it is possible. How they do it is a mystery, but they do.

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:How about a legit backdoor? by jasmak · · Score: 1

      How about encrypting all of the passwords with your second master password into a seperate section of disk space?

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    2. Re:How about a legit backdoor? by clone53421 · · Score: 1
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  60. You are amazingly wrong - MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read this and see how truecrypt actually does hidden OS partitions. There won't be 15G of free space floating around in the middle of your decoy OS partition. The hidden OS volume is inside another truecrypt volume that is meant to be on a separate partition from the decoy OS. Just look at the diagram on this page and you'll see how very off you are:

    http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-operating-system

    It doesn't matter how much your decoy OS partition gets filled or fragmented, it won't have any effect on the truecrypt partition. All the rest of your points become moot with that simple realization. Your criticisms are all very interesting, but they don't apply to truecrypt as it's actually used.

    PROTIP: Read the documentation on a product before criticizing it.

    Seriously. Don't you dare reply to this until you've read and understood the whole page I've linked you to.

    1. Re:You are amazingly wrong - MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is correct. The truecrypt hidden OS volume isn't even on the same partition as the decoy OS. It wouldn't matter how fragmented the partition that the decoy OS was on got, it wouldn't make the hidden OS volume (which is on a completely separate partition) stand out any more. GPP is full of shit.

  61. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by lymond01 · · Score: 0

    Since I didn't understand anything you just said, and I'm a C# Programmer who has Ubuntu installed on a few machines

    No no. If you want to make yourself sound like you know what you're doing, you can't use an MS programming language on an uber-user-friendly Linux distro. Try this:

    "You ignorant clod, I'm an awk and sed programmer who's got a basement cluster with a custom build of slackware...."

  62. USB encrypted volumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By accessing a windows volume via a linux volume on a dual boot system you can transparently read an encrypted volume on the USB. I don't know if this would apply to a true-crypt USB volume as well

  63. Disk space difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your drive has a label on it that says it's a 250Gb drive.

    Let's say you have a dummy Windows install, which takes 150Gb and you reveal your dummy "secret" Linux install, which takes 50Gb, but keep your real uber-secret Linux install hidden. If "they" can do simple math, couldn't they figure out that there's 50Gb missing somewhere?

    Just a thought

    Fish

  64. Debian package? And old Mac OS X 10.2.8 support? by antdude · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Is it me or is there no Debian package? I see an Ubuntu package. I don't want to compile from the source. Also, I also read that it requires sudo? Is there a way around this as a regular user?

    Also, is there a port for old Mac OS X 10.2.8?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  65. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by shaitand · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a Perl-Fu artist who has been living in a world of *nix for the past 12yrs. Let me just say that seeing someone use Ubuntu doesn't clue newb to me.

    On the contrary, Ubuntu is the only system I have seen that provides functional GUI interfaces that don't cause me to have to jump through hoops to do any sort of advanced manual configuration.

    I'm all for power, but someone who chooses Slack or regular Debian over Ubuntu is probably the type who likes hot wax poured on their balls.

  66. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This disk usage tracking method of spotting a hidden volume. Am I right in guessing this would only work for largish volumes? I can't see it working for a hidden vol of a few hundred megs in a 100GB encrypted volume. I'm wondering what sort of info a terrorist would be carrying that would be that sensitive and so large. A few names and plans don't run into gigabytes.

    Anyway, I'm not a terrorist. I can't think of a circumstance where I'm ever going to get tortured for a password. More likely is a criminal trying to access my data. I guess it's possible the police decide something you think is fine is against the law. All you need at that point is plausible deniability - i.e. the burden of proof cannot be satisfied and therefore you cannot be jailed for withholding.

  67. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was my understanding that FAT was selected because it's inherent properties allow for plausible deniability which was a stated feature and goal of the TrueCrypt project.

  68. TrueCrypt 6 'Hardware-crypto' on Flash drives avai by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

    TrueCrypt 's home also shows off their 1-16Gig USB Flashdrives ... and i noticed a spec about them that surprised me ..not being any Flashdrive expert: It seems that it takes more current (5% more!) to READ a flashdrive than to WRITE to it! eg: Power Requirements: Write: 5 VDC @ 100mA Read: 5 VDC @ 105mA Can anyone explain?? specially considering that as far as i know, WRITing requires 'heat', no?

    --
    "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
  69. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    They won't need to look that far, the fact your laptop doesn't run windows or OS X will give them an excuse to detain you for hours.

  70. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by Hatta · · Score: 1

    I have never been subjected to physical or psychological torture (aside from clients and some ex-gf of course) but I am not Jack Bauer and I would "come clean" very quickly. I would give the real password, not the decoy, because I believe consequences would certainly worsen my situation if my interrogators were not convinced.

    I am also pretty sure that the simple sentence: "The accused has so far always refused to give his encrypted drive password." would certainly help convincing a jury beyond "reasonable doubt" (In countries where such thing even exists).

    You say you use Truecrypt but you don't even understand how the plausible deniability works.

    Situation 1) You give up your master password to your interrogaters to avoid further torture. Unfortunately, you can't prove that there's not a hidden volume there still. (assuming there's some free space) So they'll just keep torturing you.

    Situation 2) You can give investigators all the passwords you want except the one special one, you can appear to be cooperating by divulging all of your porn, tax records, etc, except for the super secret data you're on trial for.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  71. Third password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What really would be a useful option is to have a third password. When you type this, it should write over all the data on the hidden volume (slowly & silently!) with really random bytes. This in the case you really don't want to take any risk that it falls in the wrong hand, or you are not strong enought to resist the prospective waterboarding..

  72. Just tested - doesn't work by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    TCExplorer 1.6 can't view TrueCrypt 6.0 containers. Gives the error "Not an OTF Volume or incorrect password" (I double checked the password) on WinXP SP3. And I had my hopes up for a replacement for PortableVault :(

    Anyone know which version of TrueCrypt WILL work with TCexplorer?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Just tested - doesn't work by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      Apparently anything before 5.0.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
  73. Why not just use a VM? by ArmyOfAardvarks · · Score: 1

    There's another security option for the paranoid that I don't hear people mention very often: Virtual Machines. Simply encrypt the Virtual Hard drive when you're not using it. Keep all your sensitive data on the VM. Play StarCraft on the regular machine.

    1. Re:Why not just use a VM? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      "Oh look, a virtual hard drive. Show us what it contains, or suffer the consequences!"

      ...that's why. Hidden partitions are hidden so you can deny their existence. That's hard with most encrypted files: they're in plain sight, just unintelligible.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  74. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

    I learned Linux on Slack. I used Gentoo for about a year. My current job has me working with half a dozen UNIXes. After all that...I run Ubuntu at home. It's pretty, it's hassle-free, and it's Linux. All-around awesome.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  75. YEAH!!!! by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

    Truecrypt rocks harder every release. I think it is now safe to say they have superseded Drivecrypt Plus Pack DCPP which costs hundreds of dollars. It is also probably safe to say they have in essence created the best encryption software available, commercial or free, and in an open source environment to top it off. LMAO @ rot13 "first post"

  76. Windows paging files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not really a Windows guru or anything, but I noticed one of the options checked by default when installing Truecrypt 6 is to "Disable Windows paging files". I was under the impression that disabling Windows paging files would alter the system's ability to use virtual memory and thus slow everything down. Is this necessary to maintain the integrity of a hidden volume or will keeping the page file active corrupt it?

    1. Re:Windows paging files by plover · · Score: 1

      I'm not really a Windows guru or anything, but I noticed one of the options checked by default when installing TrueCrypt 6 is to "Disable Windows paging files". I was under the impression that disabling Windows paging files would alter the system's ability to use virtual memory and thus slow everything down. Is this necessary to maintain the integrity of a hidden volume or will keeping the page file active corrupt it?

      No, but if you are working with the sensitive data, it's likely to be swapped out. This is TrueCrypt's way of making applications that might "consume" your secret data secure.

      Think about this example: if you have your SekritData.CSV file on your TrueCrypt drive, and you load up Excel to work on it, Excel may be a memory pig and has to swap out your data. Later, when Excel crashes, nothing is necessarily going to clean up that swap file automagically, other than an overwrite from a future swap operation. You give up in disgust and walk away, but the bad guy comes along and copies pagefile.sys to his machine. He can easily find your secret data in the clear.

      Now consider the same scenario with swapping disabled: Excel doesn't have enough memory to run, keeping your data secure! :-)

      --
      John
  77. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Nutria · · Score: 1

    I'm all for power, but someone who chooses Slack or regular Debian over Ubuntu is probably the type who likes hot wax poured on their balls.

    It is patently obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Debian Unstable is so robust and configure-everything-for-you that I've forgotten-thru-disuse much of the manual tinkering knowledge I gained back when I used "newbie-friendly" Mandrake.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  78. Version 4.3a by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Just to let everyone know.

    So for anyone else looking for a FOSS alternative to PortableVault:

    TCExplorer 1.6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tcexplorer
    TrueCrypt 4.3a: http://www.truecrypt.org/pastversions.php
    Eraser Portable: http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/eraser_portable

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  79. Fuck the fucking license! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckers!

    Oh my god how I hate vanity licenses..!

  80. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    Since I didn't understand anything you just said, and I'm a C# Programmer who has Ubuntu installed on a few machines, I highly doubt the $10/hour lunk at the airport is going to notice...

    You're just upset because you can't fetch $10/hr, yourself.

    Be that as it may, if said customs agent thinks you're suspicious, he's going to lock you in a cage until an expert can examine your hard disk. An expert whose resume is longer than "C# certified, and can insert a LiveCD into a CD-ROM drive".

    If you're not going to use TrueCrypt correctly, why use it at all?

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  81. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    As a Perl-Fu artist who has been living in a world of *nix for the past 12yrs. Let me just say that seeing someone use Ubuntu doesn't clue newb to me.

    It was "I don't know what a superblock is" that clued newb to me. I mean, come the fuck on.

    I'm all for power, but someone who chooses Slack or regular Debian over Ubuntu is probably the type who likes hot wax poured on their balls.

    How the hell did you know that?

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  82. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    A quick suggestion, for something a little easier than TrueCrypt (if you're not worried about plausible deniability): Encrypting File System. You need to be using a business/profession Windows edition, and the drive needs to be formatted with NTFS (not the default FAT). You put files onto the drive, then right click them (or the folder they're in) and select Encrypt. The files can now not be opened by anybody other than you (specifically, your user account in Windows). However, to your account, the decryption is completely transparent.

    Of course, you can't use this to share data between accounts (even if they have the same name/password) unless you backup the encryption keys (possible but more complicated). Also, the file/folder names and metadata are still visible. Nonetheless, it's one of the easiest approaches to encrypting sensitive data on a potentially shared volume.

    Note that Macs can't, last I checked, write to NTFS (though they can read it). Linux has RW support.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  83. Plead the 5th. by apachetoolbox · · Score: 1

    I plead the 5th.

    You can't make me incriminate myself. I will not explain seeks, and I will not give you passwords.

  84. Make 'em run the gauntlet by FilterMapReduce · · Score: 1

    To say that it would take a cracker "many years" to break TrueCrypt's encryption is a gigantic understatement. He would not have enough lifetime to do it (and there probably aren't enough years left on Earth to do it, anyway).

    And if even that's not enough for you, TrueCrypt has built-in support for layering algorithms on top of each other. I've always been amused at the idea of a cracker laboriously using some super-secret method and years of number-crunching to finally break the AES-winning Rijndael encryption on a particular TrueCrypt volume, only to find that the encoded data is another ciphertext encrypted with one of the runners-up!

  85. 6.0a released 08/07/08 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to keep up with it, /.

    6.0a was released today...

    http://www.truecrypt.org/news.php

    The past 3 versions have all had "a" releases within a week of the original.

  86. An irritatingly nightmarish experience by demi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a semi- geek when it comes to Windows, a non-"Power User". But I had a need for this so I thought I would give TrueCrypt a whirl, and had a real nightmarish day and a half.

    This being slashdot, I'm only inviting flames about the various things I'm doing wrong. But it does seem to me that TrueCrypt is missing a very obvious feature--encrypt other partitions in the same manner as the boot partition (that is, online and allow them to be mounted transparently) that would have saved me a lot of grief.

    See, I have C: and D: partitions, and all the user profile directories are on D:, because that's how our IT department sets things up. Do you see what's coming? Well, I encrypted the system partition without a problem. But now, the D: partition needs to be encrypted, and there's no way to do that without destroying it.

    Okay, fine, "back up" and "restore", right? Except that applications, including TrueCrypt and Windows, are pretty highly dependent on the presence of that profile directory, as I learned to my moaning grief. (Yes! TrueCrypt apparently stores which volumes you want "automatically" mounted in your profile directory!)

    One new TrueCrypt-encrypted NTFS filesystem later, and I realized there was no way to get the thing mounted before anyone logs in. Or rather, there probably is a way, but it's nothing like editing AUTOEXEC.BAT or something simple. There are registry keys that can be edited but "startup" in Windows-land always seems to refer to "user logs in" and not "boot time."

    Additionally, the TrueCrypt command-line did not seem to work as advertised. I'm not a genius but I do carefully read documentation and double-check command-lines before I issue them, and it should not have been possible for TrueCrypt to attempt to remount and repair the system partition as another drive letter, but it did. So I gave up on my dream of having an encrypted C: and D: mounted at boot time, so the user profile directory can be there waiting for the user to log in.

    Did I mention how grumpy Windows and everything else gets when the profile directory goes away? Very grumpy indeed. A forest of "registry may be corrupted" error messages greets any attempt to change anything, and so forth. After struggling with these kinds of issues for some time, I really just wiped D: for good and let the system "rebuild" the profile directories on first login. Now I have a bunch of reconfiguration to do and things still aren't right (for example, start menus aren't correct because lots of programs had shortcuts in D:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Start Menu).

    It really seems to me that this is not that unusual a situation (two partitions need to be mounted to boot the system) that should be accommodated by something like TrueCrypt. I'm disappointed in TrueCrypt, red-bloodedly refreshed in my hatred of Windows and harboring evil thoughts toward my company IT department.

    --
    demi
  87. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    couldn't you just mark the any such book-keeping blocks from the first 'decoy' filesystem as bad blocks when creating the second 'super-secret' filesystem?

  88. Re:Debian package? And old Mac OS X 10.2.8 support by antdude · · Score: 1

    So how is my post a flamebait?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  89. 6.0a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Update - 6.0a was just released today 7/8/2008. http://www.truecrypt.org/news.php

  90. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am still in shock. A reasonable point of view. Wow.

  91. Re:That might betray the presence of a hidden volu by Selivanow · · Score: 1

    Which is why you can now hide entire OSes. Just give them the pass for Windows or ReactOS...hey it doesn't need to do much, just give them the same false sense of security that they give us.

    --
    -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
  92. Brilliant by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    What's needed to avoid this is *complete* deniability; something which I don't think any software can offer.

    That's a fantastic idea.

    Truecrypt could certainly offer a feature to scan all blocks on a drive and make a map of which blocks are accounted for by currently exposed volumes, if running from within those volumes.

    Wow, I'd consider this essential if your Mallory is capable of torture.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  93. Re: OK Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have a major flaw in your argument: you assume that it works this way:
    torture --> get valid information ; repeat

    One of the big problems is that "valid" is by no means established And if you torture you've debased yourself so thoroughly that you may as well kill yourself.

    You probably think torture is justified at times. And you probably love hypothetical arguments about situations that'll never happen.

  94. Re:It's not a silver bullet but it's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to totally agree with you here. I live in the US and work for a company that has a mobile workforce. All laptops leave with drive encryption, mainly b/c we don't want any of our data getting into the wrong hands. The entire volume is encrypted, no hidden volumes etc. A lot of people seem to be very insane when it comes to "the courts" and "the government" however, the majority of these paranoid individuals most certainly have never come into contact with anything close to what a government would classify "confidential or sensitive". My take on the whole thing is this: Most computer security freaks deal in an alternate reality based on too many movies and not enough real world experience. In all of the years that I have worked with computers in multiple business subject to scrutiny of some sort, I have never once had the NSA men in black bust in through the roof and demand that I decrypt a drive or else. If you are on the up and up, then chances are, you will never have this situation occur. If you do, then it may be a good time to put down the dropper full of LSD that is making these delusions seem so real.

  95. culprit? by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    Google Desktop is another culprit that exposes hidden files in TrueCrypt versions below 6.0, according to the report. The Google app's lists of recently changed documents and logs of recent file actions can reveal the existence of a hidden file.

    Really poor phrasing. It makes Google Desktop look like the offender, when in actuality it ended up being a useful tool in pointing out a vulnerability (and perhaps correcting it).

    --
    Beetle B.