"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FA54A3EC626abcxyzcom@127.0.0.1...

> It means that there is an apparent discrepancy between the two sources.
> You may resolve that discrepancy in a number of ways, trading off
> convenience versus comprehensiveness. I suggest the best way, assuming
> you have the skills, is to check for yourself.
>
> Personally, I see this as a matter of little consequence one way or the
> other. A partition full of random data - with or without telltale
> headers, partition signatures, etc. - is a dead giveaway that encryption
> is being used. Couple that with the existence of Truecrypt drivers and
> corresponding registry entries (I assume a Windows OS) and the conviction
> that encryption is being used rises to a near certainty.
>
>
> Remember, truecrypt does not attempt to hide (other than superficially)
> the fact that it is being used - it is NOT a form of steganography.
>
> Regards,
>
> PS You could, I suppose, thoroughly scrub the registry, remove drivers,
> and diddle with the Truecrypt header (restoring it from external media
> before use and overwriting it afterwards) but this seems rather tiresome
> and likely to be neglected by all but the most fanatic.

My concern is more with the embedded volume. I don't mind if the external
volume is recognized as encrypted. My concern is that the volume within the
volume remains hidden. If it is possible to recognize the presence of the
hidden volume within the external volume then it would defeats its purpose.
That was my concern in the initial question too but I probably formulated it
badly.