On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> http://www.truecrypt.org/
>
> Regards,
>
> PS Main change: Vista ready
This may sound like a dumb question but i have been burned many times
with new versions not working with stuff created by old versions, ie.
Symantec anti virus corp edition. I have 4.2a installed and have a
partition that was created with this version. Will 4.3 be able to work
with that partition? TIA
"Hexalon" <Hexalon@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174401275.306103.322760
@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>> http://www.truecrypt.org/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> PS Main change: Vista ready
>
> This may sound like a dumb question but i have been burned many times
> with new versions not working with stuff created by old versions, ie.
> Symantec anti virus corp edition. I have 4.2a installed and have a
> partition that was created with this version. Will 4.3 be able to work
> with that partition? TIA
I do not speak for Truecrypt and ultimately you must make your own
assessment of whther the new version is suitable for your circumstances.
However, the version history, http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-
history, does not indicate any loss of backward compatibility with existing
partitions/container-files (although some encryption algorithms will no
longer be supported for *creating* partitions/containers).
Moreover, if you encounter difficulties you could always revert to an
earlier version of Truecrypt. And in the worst case you could always fall
back on your partition backups (you do have backups, right?)
Now, with my avuncular due-diligence warnings out of the way, let me say
that, if history is a guide, new versions of Truecrypt have always been
very solid with respect to backwards compatibility.
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
> http://www.truecrypt.org/
>
> Regards,
>
>
> PS Main change: Vista ready
While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume is
recognized or not.
"[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as random
garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to create the
Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs claiming the partition
is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather unhelpfully tell the world
that it is obviously a Truecrypt created volume. I am at a loss to
understand the logic of this, but there it is."
"2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished
from random data)."
Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
there is something I am missing?
> "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
> > http://www.truecrypt.org/
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > PS Main change: Vista ready
>
> While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume is
> recognized or not.
>
>
>
> On the Security and Encryption FAQ - Revision 21.1.1 of Dr Who to be found
> at https://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantaw...dEncryptionFaq, it
> says:
>
>
>
> "[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
> identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as random
> garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to create the
> Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs claiming the partition
> is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather unhelpfully tell the world
> that it is obviously a Truecrypt created volume. I am at a loss to
> understand the logic of this, but there it is."
>
>
>
> But on the Truecrypt page at http://www.truecrypt.org/, it says:
>
>
>
> "2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished
> from random data)."
>
>
>
> Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
> that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
> there is something I am missing?
What it means is that "Dr. Who" is a clueless dullard. His FAQ is so
riddled with mistakes, misinformation, FUD, and SPAM it's a joke. No
reputable site even mirrors it any more.
<cemeqi> wrote in news:1300vdhs59hfaa5@news.supernews.com:
> "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
>> http://www.truecrypt.org/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> PS Main change: Vista ready
>
> While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume
> is recognized or not.
>
>
>
> On the Security and Encryption FAQ - Revision 21.1.1 of Dr Who to be
> found at
> https://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantaw...dEncryptionFaq, it
> says:
>
>
>
> "[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
> identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as
> random garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to
> create the Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs
> claiming the partition is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather
> unhelpfully tell the world that it is obviously a Truecrypt created
> volume. I am at a loss to understand the logic of this, but there it
> is."
>
>
>
> But on the Truecrypt page at http://www.truecrypt.org/, it says:
>
>
>
> "2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be
> distinguished from random data)."
>
>
>
> Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date
> or that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively,
> that there is something I am missing?
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.
"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.
<cemeqi> wrote in news:1303msmrb60gc77@news.supernews.com:
> 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.
The Truecrypt documentation goes to some lengths to describe how the "inner
embedded volume" is kept undetectable. If you are unsatisfied with the
explanation then you must do your own tests (or scrounge about on google to
see if some one has done this for you and if you are satisfied with their
description/methodology/results).
On Mar 20, 8:28 pm, Sebastian Gottschalk <s...@seppig.de> wrote:
> cemeqi wrote:
> > Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
> > that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
> > there is something I am missing?
>
> An *unmounted* volume cannot be differed from random data. Trying to mount
> a volume is implemented by trying all ciphers with the provided key and
> will be successful if the volume is actually a TrueCrypt volume.
>
> If you read the history, it tells that you cannot create any more new
> volume with some of the deprecated ciphers, but it will still recognize
> such volumes. Totally removing this cipher is scheduled for TrueCrypt v5.0.
>
> Thus, if you have such an old volume, it will still work. But you should
> really consider migration.
What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
one be around? TIA
On Mar 23, 9:46 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "Hexalon" <Hexa...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1174688309.771462.5770@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
>
> ...
>
> > What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
> > one be around? TIA
>
> Read the full story for yourself:
>
> http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
>
> Regards,
nemo_outis wrote:
> "Hexalon" <Hexalon@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1174688309.771462.5770@n76g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com:
>
> ...
>> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
>> one be around? TIA
>
> Read the full story for yourself:
>
> http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
>
> Regards,
>
Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
(yeah, a bit of overkill!)
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FAC8758DB9Babcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
> <cemeqi> wrote in news:1303msmrb60gc77@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> The Truecrypt documentation goes to some lengths to describe how the
> "inner
> embedded volume" is kept undetectable. If you are unsatisfied with the
> explanation then you must do your own tests (or scrounge about on google
> to
> see if some one has done this for you and if you are satisfied with their
> description/methodology/results).
Will try that some day. I must admit I have not as yet installed Truecrypt,
part of the reason being what I have read in the reference above. I am still
unclear as to why Dr. Who wrote such a thing but it seems that it is not
such a clear-cut issue after all. Thanks.
On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
wrote:
> nemo_outis wrote:
> > "Hexalon" <Hexa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:1174688309.771462.5770@n76g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > ...
> >> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
> >> one be around? TIA
>
> > Read the full story for yourself:
>
> >http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
>
> > Regards,
>
> Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
> (yeah, a bit of overkill!)
What algorithm do your firewalls use? RSA? AES? I use 256-bit AES
because that algorithm seems to be a good trade off of speed and
security.
Hexalon wrote:
> On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>> "Hexalon" <Hexa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:1174688309.771462.5770@n76g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com:
>>> ...
>>>> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
>>>> one be around? TIA
>>> Read the full story for yourself:
>>> http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
>>> Regards,
>> Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
>> (yeah, a bit of overkill!)
>
> What algorithm do your firewalls use? RSA? AES? I use 256-bit AES
> because that algorithm seems to be a good trade off of speed and
> security.
>
Truecrypt 4.3 Released 
Linear Mode
