Truecrypt 5.0 Released (now with system partition encryption)

nemo_outis wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote
> in news:24250861f8cfd5a440460111e28b78d8@remailer.cyb eriade.it:
>
> Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because there's
> nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process started.

Wanna bet? If I post a link that proves Windows can boot
from a 100% encrypted device, including the MBR, WITHOUT
using any other software or copying any information at
all to or from anywhere, will you put on your clown suit
and dance for us, then leave?

>
> Regards,
>

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

Sebastian G. wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> > nemo_outis wrote:
> >
> >> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
> >> news:cfba7ec8f8b207e0a1bd089fe3255024@mixmaster.it :
> >>
> >>> nemo_outis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There must - necessarily! - be a small amount of unencrypted code on
> >>>> the boot/system volume. This is invariably located on track 0.
> >>> Nope! I fact with *true* whole disk encryption there is absolutely no
> >>> unencrypted information on a device at all.
> >> Uhh, doofus, Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because
> >> there's nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process
> >
> > Wrong!
> >
> > Windows can trivially boot from a completely, 100% end to end including
> > sector 0, encrypted drive without modifying Windows at all, without
> > using any external bootstrapping at all, and without using any stupid
> > "boot sector copying" scheme.
>
>
> OK, now I'm interested: How is this supposed to work? If everything is
> encrypted, where's the code for the decryption?

Come on, you can figure it out before Nemo I'll bet. ;)

And at that point you'll begin to grasp the meaning of full disk
encryption too. :)

Keep rereading it until you understand it - eventually you may get it.

Regards,

Anonymous <nobody@aes256.cn> wrote in
news:467a6c3e67d87672537f410df031956d@aes256.cn:

No, Windows boots from the system drive.

You can hack Windows to do otherwise. I myself have used bit & pieces of
the PE kit and embedded version to do just that - but it's a hack.

Regards,

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:6270a31775d25da7059bfd247d8d8412@dizum.com:

Back again with the same bullshit? You get the same answer as last time.

If you have some argument to show how an unencrypted partition table would
permit decrypting the contents of of an encrypted partition, then make it.
If not, then, as I have repeatedly suggested: Do be a good little moron and
fuck off.

Regards,

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:69260f18808f2e54180e245439fe6696@mixmaster.it :

If you have something to say, say it.

Then, if it's not utter nonsence, I may reply.

Regards,

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:2f232c66d7dd1e5ccf22d1b0cb3ad90b@mixmaster.it :

You still have figured things out? You'd better reread it yet again.

Regards,

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:616neqF1thrluU2@mid.dfncis.de:

>> It's not the unintended setup that's unsupported ny Microsoft, but
>> setup to a removable drive (e.g., USB)
>
> Unsupported, not crippled.

More quibbling and caviling, Sebastian. Microsoft does NOT support Windows
configured in such ways. In short, it's a hack, Sebastian.

Regards,

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:616nm0F1thrluU3@mid.dfncis.de:

Micrsoft ionly supports Windows booting from the system disk - anything
else is a hack.

Regards,

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:616o5pF1thrluU6@mid.dfncis.de:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it>
>> wrote in news:24250861f8cfd5a440460111e28b78d8@remailer.cyb eriade.it:
>>
>> Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because there's
>> nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process started.
>
> This decryption can be provided by an additional, removal media. The
> media only decrypts the the boot loader mini driver, which is turn
> will decrypt the relevant files, boot up the Windows kernel and pass
> over control to the actual decryption driver.
>
> TrueCrypt does not support this scheme. PGP Whole Disk Encryption
> does, and some other claim to do so as well.

Yes, but this is a hack of Windows, Sebastian.

I've hacked Windows in similar ways myself - I have a stripped down
version of XP that boots from a USB stick. Very handy for
diagnostics/recovery when things go awry.

And, of course, one can do adiitional hacks so that the initialization
code on one device (e.g., a USB stick) hands off the rest of Windows
operation to a separate volume (commonly a RAM disk, but potentially a
HD).

But these are hacks of Windows, Sebastain - completely unsupported.

Regards,

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:0c1c7bde2e1352bf6ab6f2bb1ddf5e1e@dizum.com:

Are you still blithering on?

Regards,

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:c55c038c9722894a88f01af8c6244801@mixmaster.it :

If you have something to say, then say it.

Until then (and probably even after) you're just noise on the channel.

Regards,

Sebastian G. wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> > it spotlights why OTP is considered
> > the only truly unbreakable form of encryption. If a ciphertext can
> > potentially be "anything", it's impossible to even know if you've
> > successfully decrypted it or not. ;)
>
>
> OTP's security comes from the fact that knowing the message doesn't change
> the a priory probability of the plaintext. It never claimed that all
> plaintexts are equally likely.

No, that's EXACTLY what H(M) = H(M | C) means, if you actually
understand it. Since a priory probability and a posteriori probability
are equal a given ciphertext could in fact decrypt to... anything.
Given the appropriate pad of course.

For someone who tries to paint themselves as possessing some level of
understanding with respect to crypto and general security by slinging
around terms, you really don't grasp much any of it with any REAL
understanding, do you?

nemo_outis wrote:

> Keep rereading it until you understand it - eventually you may get it.

Read what, coward? This?

"The chapter explains why BestCrypt Volume Encryption (a line in
BestCrypt family of encryption software products) has got Volume
Encryption name. Many people may think that Volume Encryption is the
same as Partition Encryption or even Whole Disk Encryption. Sometimes
it is really so, but not always, and it is worth to learn about the
difference."

*snicker*

Sebastian G. wrote:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
> > Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote
> > in news:24250861f8cfd5a440460111e28b78d8@remailer.cyb eriade.it:
> >
> > Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because there's
> > nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process started.
>
> This decryption can be provided by an additional, removal media. The media

Nope. Not even close.

nemo_outis wrote:

<snip a'la nemo>

"The chapter explains why BestCrypt Volume Encryption (a line in
BestCrypt family of encryption software products) has got Volume
Encryption name. Many people may think that Volume Encryption is the
same as Partition Encryption or even Whole Disk Encryption. Sometimes
it is really so, but not always, and it is worth to learn about the
difference."

*snicker*

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
news:a964c9301e9397099e2bddc3bb6136cd@remailer.cyb eriade.it:

> "The chapter explains why BestCrypt Volume Encryption (a line in
> BestCrypt family of encryption software products) has got Volume
> Encryption name. Many people may think that Volume Encryption is the
> same as Partition Encryption or even Whole Disk Encryption. Sometimes
> it is really so, but not always, and it is worth to learn about the
> difference."

You continue not to understand what Bestcrypt says. Now, if it were only a
question of your continued lack of understanding I would allow you to
wallow in your ignorance forever, since you're not worth the sweat off my
balls.

However, in case anyone else is taken in by your foolishness, let me point
out to them that Bestcrypt talks about - hell, brags about! - providing
"volume encryption" because Bestcrypt uses volume in the "Microsoft sense"
to refer to a storage entity (a volume) that can (inter alia) be stored
across (i.e., span) multiple partitions and even *MULTIPLE hard drives*
including the volume as a mirror, stripe or RAID 5.

Regards,

Anonymous <xor@hermetix.org> wrote in news:d904e9efeb6af2a0cce14df80011c913
@hermetix.org:

Reread it again - you still don't understand it.

Regards,

nemo_outis wrote:

> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
> news:69260f18808f2e54180e245439fe6696@mixmaster.it :
>
> If you have something to say, say it.

No, you have to ask nicely first. Shouldn't be necessary because it's
so obvious, but hey... if you're just to stupid to figure it out you're
just to stupid. Guess there's nothing we can do about your genetics.

*shrug*

We can try to train some manners into you though. So sit up straight
and pretend you're really not the emotional equivalent of a seven year
old, and ask.

Have that nose ready.

>
> Then, if it's not utter nonsence, I may reply.

You must be getting a bit flustered. Not only are you running away from
posts, your spelling and grammar are really starting to suck hind tit.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

In article <9add438392ef222c5502081bb6856eac@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
> > Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >
> > > it spotlights why OTP is considered
> > > the only truly unbreakable form of encryption. If a ciphertext can
> > > potentially be "anything", it's impossible to even know if you've
> > > successfully decrypted it or not. ;)
> >
> >
> > OTP's security comes from the fact that knowing the message doesn't change
> > the a priory probability of the plaintext. It never claimed that all
> > plaintexts are equally likely.
>
> No, that's EXACTLY what H(M) = H(M | C) means, if you actually
> understand it. Since a priory probability and a posteriori probability
> are equal a given ciphertext could in fact decrypt to... anything.
> Given the appropriate pad of course.
>
> For someone who tries to paint themselves as possessing some level of
> understanding with respect to crypto and general security by slinging
> around terms, you really don't grasp much any of it with any REAL
> understanding, do you?

The British merchant navy used OTP (maybe still do) for GBMS and GACQ
messages. The pads were stored in the Captain's safe with a copy
in the radio officer's safe. Despite the restrictions on radio officer's
having to be of British nationality and requiring screening before being
issued with their PMG Certificates, the British authorities always made
an exception for Irish (Eire) nationals. Even during the darkest days of
the troubles in Northern Ireland (Ulster), Irish qualified radio officers
were still recruited and therefore given access to these pads. It is
inconceivable that not one single Irish national radio officer did not
copy these pads.

This suggests that OTP's are only as secure as the methodology of
securing them against being compromised. Arguments of their security
are of no avail against allowing an attacker access to them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

nemo_outis wrote:

<snip a'la nemo>

"The chapter explains why BestCrypt Volume Encryption (a line in
BestCrypt family of encryption software products) has got Volume
Encryption name. Many people may think that Volume Encryption is the
same as Partition Encryption or even Whole Disk Encryption. Sometimes
it is really so, but not always, and it is worth to learn about the
difference."

*snicker*

nemo_outis wrote:

> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
> news:616neqF1thrluU2@mid.dfncis.de:
>
> >> It's not the unintended setup that's unsupported ny Microsoft, but
> >> setup to a removable drive (e.g., USB)
> >
> > Unsupported, not crippled.
>
> More quibbling and caviling, Sebastian. Microsoft does NOT support
> Windows configured in such ways. In short, it's a hack, Sebastian.

Actually Microsoft does in deed support such Windows configurations,
openly and officially.

>
> Regards,

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:7274f8b17fa7ca9e23b39b9220e17cbb@mixmaster.it :

If you have something to say, say it.

Regards,

nemo_outis wrote:

You've already been given a cite explaining exactly how and why
unencrypted partition tables are a risk. How they can in FACT aid
in the cryptanalysis of an encrypted volume, and you damned well
know it or you wouldn't have made a pathetic attempt to twist
things into some discussion of absolutes.

nemo_outis wrote:

> You continue not to understand what Bestcrypt says. Now, if it
> were only a question of your continued lack of understanding I
> would allow you to wallow in your ignorance forever, since you're
> not worth the sweat off my balls.
>
> However, in case anyone else is taken in by your foolishness, let
> me point out to them that Bestcrypt talks about - hell, brags
> about! - providing "volume encryption" because Bestcrypt uses
> volume in the "Microsoft sense" to refer to a storage entity (a
> volume) that can (inter alia) be stored across (i.e., span)
> multiple partitions and even *MULTIPLE hard drives* including the
> volume as a mirror, stripe or RAID 5.

Which all means absolutely nothing except you're desperately trying
to cloud the issue to avoid having to admit you're FOS, because
none of that defines Bestcrypt as whole disk encryption. None of it.

Jetico doesn't claim Bestcrypt to be WD encryption, in fact they
call it something else completely and go out of their way to make
readers aware that the differences should be considered.

Bestcrypt isn't even mistakenly listed on any independent site that
categorizes or reviews encryption software, as whole disk. Nowhere.

The only one running around like their head is on fire screaming IS
TO! IS TO! IS TO! in between hiding from the aforementioned
description is you

Has it even crossed your mind yet why that might be? Why you think
your interpretation is "right" and the entire rest of the world is
wrong?

There's a medical term for that state of mind, nemo_outis.

nemo_outis wrote:

> You continue not to understand what Bestcrypt says.

You mean this...

"The chapter explains why BestCrypt Volume Encryption (a line in
BestCrypt family of encryption software products) has got Volume
Encryption name. Many people may think that Volume Encryption is the
same as Partition Encryption or even Whole Disk Encryption. Sometimes
it is really so, but not always, and it is worth to learn about the
difference."

*snicker*

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

nemo_outis wrote:

> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
> news:0c1c7bde2e1352bf6ab6f2bb1ddf5e1e@dizum.com:
>
> Are you still blithering on?

Are you still running like a coward from cites?

Of course you are. :)

>
> Regards,
>

nemo_outis wrote:

> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
> news:7274f8b17fa7ca9e23b39b9220e17cbb@mixmaster.it :
>
> If you have something to say, say it.

No, you have to ask nicely first. Shouldn't be necessary because it's
so obvious, but hey... if you're just to stupid to figure it out you're
just to stupid. Guess there's nothing we can do about your genetics.

*shrug*

We can try to train some manners into you though. So sit up straight
and pretend you're really not the emotional equivalent of a seven year
old, and ask.

Have that nose ready.

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:c55c038c9722894a88f01af8c6244801@mixmaster.it :

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote
>> in news:24250861f8cfd5a440460111e28b78d8@remailer.cyb eriade.it:
>>
>> Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because there's
>> nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process started.
>
> Wanna bet? If I post a link that proves Windows can boot
> from a 100% encrypted device, including the MBR, WITHOUT
> using any other software or copying any information at
> all to or from anywhere, will you put on your clown suit
> and dance for us, then leave?

I'm not that person, but I'd be interested to see the link please.

How secure is ATA Disk encryption? There seem to be many tools to unlock
discs.

Anonymous wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>
>>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
>>>> news:cfba7ec8f8b207e0a1bd089fe3255024@mixmaster.it :
>>>>
>>>>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There must - necessarily! - be a small amount of unencrypted code on
>>>>>> the boot/system volume. This is invariably located on track 0.
>>>>> Nope! I fact with *true* whole disk encryption there is absolutely no
>>>>> unencrypted information on a device at all.
>>>> Uhh, doofus, Windows cannot boot from a completely encrypted disk because
>>>> there's nothing to decrypt those first bytes to even get the process
>>> Wrong!
>>>
>>> Windows can trivially boot from a completely, 100% end to end including
>>> sector 0, encrypted drive without modifying Windows at all, without
>>> using any external bootstrapping at all, and without using any stupid
>>> "boot sector copying" scheme.
>>
>> OK, now I'm interested: How is this supposed to work? If everything is
>> encrypted, where's the code for the decryption?
>
> Come on, you can figure it out before Nemo I'll bet. ;)


Some people have been discussing using LinuxBIOS or a BIOS modification for
implementing the decryption routine in the BIOS, however I would count this
as external bootstrapping scheme. (And it's obviously detectable.)