Slashdot Mirror
Security Researchers Want To Fully Audit Truecrypt
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "TrueCrypt has been part of security-minded users' toolkits for nearly a decade — but there's one problem: no one has ever conducted a full security audit on it. Now Cyrus Farivar reports in Ars Technica that a fundraiser reached more than $16,000 in a public call to perform a full security audit on TrueCrypt. 'Lots of people use it to store very sensitive information,' writes Matthew Green, a well-known cryptography professor at Johns Hopkins University. 'That includes corporate secrets and private personal information. Bruce Schneier is even using it to store information on his personal air-gapped super-laptop, after he reviews leaked NSA documents. We should be sweating bullets about the security of a piece of software like this.' According to Green, Truecrypt 'does some damned funny things that should make any (correctly) paranoid person think twice.' The Ubuntu Privacy Group says the behavior of the Windows version [of Truecrypt 7.0] is problematic. 'As it can't be ruled out that the published Windows executable of Truecrypt 7.0a is compiled from a different source code than the code published in "TrueCrypt_7.0a_Source.zip" we however can't preclude that the binary Windows package uses the header bytes after the key for a back door.' Green is one of people leading the charge to setup the audit, and he helped create the website istruecryptauditedyet.com. 'We're now in a place where we have nearly, but not quite enough to get a serious audit done.'"
I am shocked, and frankly a little pissed off that Version 6 and Version 7 aren't identical.
Thirty four characters live here.
Yeah, it's a typo. The privacy report says in the last full paragraph on page 13:
As it can't be ruled out that the published Windows executable of TrueCrypt 7.0a is compiled from a different source code than the code published in “TrueCrypt 7.0a Source.zip” we however can't preclude that the binary Windows package uses the header bytes after the key for a back door.
Seems the author retyped the statement themselves rather than just copying and pasting then the summary carried it over.
Well, we can't trust that copy/paste hasn't been back-doored.
TrueCrypt has a custom license and it is unclear how it mixes with other licenses. This makes code-sharing between TrueCrypt and other projects problematical.
According to TFA nobody knows who wrote TrueCrypt.
The answer to the problem is simple: relicense TrueCrypt. If there are no known authors, there's nobody to complain.
...I thought the main point of the "open source is more secure" argument was that this process supposedly happened on its own, organically?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Yeah, it's a typo. The privacy report says in the last full paragraph on page 13:
As it can't be ruled out that the published Windows executable of TrueCrypt 7.0a is compiled from a different source code than the code published in “TrueCrypt 7.0a Source.zip” we however can't preclude that the binary Windows package uses the header bytes after the key for a back door.
Seems the author retyped the statement themselves rather than just copying and pasting then the summary carried it over.
As I can't make sense of this sentence even as corrected, I however can't preclude that there is still a typo.
I am not a crackpot.
...if you distribute modified versions of TrueCrypt, you cannot charge for copies. That is non-free...
...nothing in the license constitutes a promise not to sue for copyright infringement. Our counsel advises that a plain reading of this indicates that if Fedora complies with all the requirements of the TrueCrypt license, we would nonetheless have no assurance that TrueCrypt will not sue me for my acts of copying, distribution, creation of derivative works, and so forth...
TrueCrypt seems to be reserving the right to sue any licensee for copyright infringement, no matter whether they comply with the conditions of the license or not. Based on this, our counsel advised that above and beyond being non-free, software under this license is not safe to use...
Our counsel advised us that this license has the appearance of being full of clever traps, which make the license appear to be a sham (and non-free).
Given all of this, plus the problems with TrueCrypt authorship etc. I think the best course of action is replacing with a free implementation, maybe starting with something like this?
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Perhaps the $16,000 could be divided up and paid to multiple researchers who do their own separate analyses. Even better would be researchers on different continents, who pledge not to communicate with each other until their work is complete.
I use the best encryption ever for everything I need to keep secret. The algorithm is a simple bitwise XOR applied to every byte in the file, using the data itself as a one-time pad. Completely uncrackable unless you know the data that was used for the pad.
The output also compresses really well!
=Smidge=
It's not open source.
Not open source? The source is available for download here.
You can't compile it yourself. You have no idea what is in the source.
You certainly can compile it yourself; I built it on my old Linux iBook G4 (PowerPC), since there were no binaries available for that platform. As has been discussed above, it does have a weird license, but it is absolutely open source.
"TrueCrypt has been part of security-minded users' toolkits for nearly a decade — but there's one problem: no one has ever conducted a full security audit on it except the NSA.
FTFY
Not open source? The source is available for download here.
You can't compile it yourself. You have no idea what is in the source.
You certainly can compile it yourself; I built it on my old Linux iBook G4 (PowerPC), since there were no binaries available for that platform. As has been discussed above, it does have a weird license, but it is absolutely open source.
Grandparent probably refers to Open Source Software, which is a formally defined term. It's not enough that you can merely read the source, you have to be able to redistribute it and any changes, too.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
This summary is a lot like the header of a Truecrypt volume in that it may contain crucial information in scrambled form.
The rest of TFA explains that the header of a Truecrypt volume either contains encrypted zeros (using the Linux version) or "random bits" when using the Windows client. The implication is that these "random bits" could actually contain the encrypted key to the volume.
Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data? I don't. I'm more concerned about Russia, China and assorted hackers and scammers the world over who might actually want to do me harm,
Because as a U.S. resident, I don't worry about Russia, China, etc. kicking my door down and throwing me in jail or putting me on a no-fly list for some joke I made in a private email to a friend.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data?
Because government entities are being used to punish those of differing political beliefs than those in power. It will only get worse, and it matters not what "side" the current rulers are. The current administrations favorite punishment tool seems to be the IRS. Can't wait to find out how bad it gets with the next administration.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Be in no doubt. You are NOT witnessing an attempt to ensure the security of Truecrypt. You ARE seeing a standard FUD play by NSA people against one of the greatest thorns in their side.
Put this in the same category as those regular stories that appear on Slashdot and elsewhere, telling you that you CANNOT ever be sure that your erased data on your Hard-drive cannot be recovered by sophisticated forensic analysis of the magnetic surface. The NSA even paid to have a peer-reviewed paper placed in the scientific literature claiming such recovery is possible- despite the fact that such a claim is provably laughable.
Here's the mathematical proof of NONE recoverability of properly deleted data.
- let us say that you fill a HDD with target data, and now over-write that data with a RANDOM series of bytes. If the original data CAN be recovered, we have DOUBLED the capacity of the HDD, because logically there can be no distinction between the original data, and the random data used to erase it.
- now, let's say we wipe again with another random sequence. If the original data can be recovered, we have TRIPLED the capacity of the HDD, for the reason stated above.
- and again, we wipe with another random wave. If the original data is STILL recoverable, we have quadrupled the functioning capacity of the HDD.
- repeat, etc.
The problem is that the HDD is designed, given the head, recording signal, and surface material, to only support the original capacity under the signal theory that covers the current method of recording. It does NOT matter that in theory, the disk material MAY be able to save far more data with a different head, and signal method. Only the current method matters.
But the owners of Slashdot will allow periodic FUD articles to appear that DISCOURAGE people from using proper file erase tools, on the basis that its actually a waste of time, because the NSA can still get your data no matter how you erase it.
Much of what the NSA engages in is PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE. Major US TV networks and film studios, for instance, have been ordered to NEVER reveal the fact that ALL mobile phones in the USA have their location continually tracked by cell tower triangulation methods. While is is actually LAW in the US that every cell phone must have continuous location tracking ability, the US government believes many criminals are inherently stupid, and will allow their cell phones to produce evidence against them ***IF*** they have false ideas about how cell phone technology works. US Dramas like 'Shameless' (the US remake) and films like 'The Call' have actually informed the audience that ONLY phones with real GPS chips can be location-tracked- a complete and total lie, but a lie designed to sink into the unsophisticated minds of the sheeple.
The truth about the strength of Truecrypt is the complete LACK of stories about Truecrypt being defeated in practice. Shills will try to tell you that this is because Truecrypt is defeated in super-secret cases you can't be allowed to hear about, but this is a nonsense for two reasons. If you are a high level target of the NSA, nothing can save you, so the security of any encryption system is irrelevant. If systems like Truecrypt are defeated as part of ordinary governmental actions, the government, by law, has to allow this fact to be known (the RIGHT to a fair trial, etc).
So instead, you get this FUD attack against Truecrypt, which will persuade a certain percentage of suckers to NOT bother using Trucrypt in the first place, give up using it, or transfer to a commercial alternative that is DEFINITELY compromised by the NSA (ALL commercial encryption software is compromised).
Ask the author how they compile it.
Great idea!
Now we just need to find the unknown, anonymous author...
The current version of TrueCrypt is 7.1a. Why are they only talking of older versions?
It's not well-written.
Here's what it's saying:
* We can audit the TrueCrypt source code.
* TrueCrypt for Windows is distributed as a binary.
* We can't verify that the TrueCrypt for Windows binary is actually built from the TrueCrypt source code.
* Thus, we can't (effectively) audit the TrueCrypt for Windows binary.
They give an example of one backdoor of concern in the sentence, but really the logic is true for any arbitrary security concern.
Similar with me. The NSA invading privacy is one issue, but I have higher priorities on my list to guard against. I like packing my own parachute so if some criminal organization hacks my remote storage provider [1], the data is still secure.
Is TrueCrypt insecure? Unknown. Is it good enough to keep a criminal organization out of my old tax papers? More likely than not, although I have been moving to storing data in GnuPG [2] encrypted ZIP archives with an accompanying signature and manifest file (also encrypted) which will allow the contents to be opened up on more platforms than just what TC supports.
[1]: When deploying a storage service in a private cloud, I deployed it where the data stored on the SAN LUNs were encrypted. This made great internal PR, but it still didn't solve the problem that if someone hacked the client, the data was a sftp command away from being slurped off.
[2]: Well, on Linux and OS X, GnuPG. On Windows, Symantec's PGP Desktop because it supports my ancient Aladdin (now SafeNet) eTokens.
The only IRS punishment going on is the IRS trying to stop political groups claiming they are charities. Something congress themselves should have fixed rather than leave it to the IRS to try to sort out all the liars. When Crossroads GPS, a superPAC created by Karl Rove of all people is claiming to be a charity there is a WHOLE lot of lying going on.
Between the copy action and the paste action, the NSA was able to get in, read the copied text, parse it and then subtly alter it in order to cause confusion and distrust among us. We must act now!
I found an apt quotation from Edmund Burke we should all take to heart regarding acting against the NSA. I'll copy it here:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do something."
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------