nobody@mixmaster.it (George Orwell) writes:
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
> > Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> TrueCrypt can encrypt entire disks/volumes, and this has been there since at
> > >> least version 4.0.
> > >
> > > That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
> > > term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
> > > device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
> > > whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
> >
> >
> > You're telling bullshit.
>
> No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
> distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
Then why do TrueCrypt say "You can also encrypt entire hard disks"
in their documentation? (After they've already talked about
encrypting entire partitions, of course.)
You are clearly the one who's full of bullshit.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:00:12 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Krazee Brenda wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:29:41 +0000, me@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>> > I have a simple text file, less than 64KB, containing all the
>> > unique passwords I use for websites. I want to encrypt it in as
>> > secure a manner as possible on a Windows XP box. I don't need
>> > all these other fancy features, just a simple "type in my
>> > passphrase, see the text file" system. Any recommendations?
>> > It doesn't need to be free.
>>
>> Axcrypt, Twofish (with GUI) shit there's another one.
>
>I take it you're oblivious to the fact that Bruce Schneier himself
>recommends *not* using twofish, right?
Reference please.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:00:12 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Krazee Brenda wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:29:41 +0000, me@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>> I have a simple text file, less than 64KB, containing all the
>>> unique passwords I use for websites. I want to encrypt it in as
>>> secure a manner as possible on a Windows XP box. I don't need
>>> all these other fancy features, just a simple "type in my
>>> passphrase, see the text file" system. Any recommendations?
>>> It doesn't need to be free.
>>
>> Axcrypt, Twofish (with GUI) shit there's another one.
>
> I take it you're oblivious to the fact that Bruce Schneier himself
> recommends *not* using twofish, right?
>>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
>>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
>>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
>>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
>>
>> You're telling bullshit.
>
> No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
> distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
Which doesn't change the fact that TrueCrypt does implement FDE.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:01:39 -0600, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
> George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>>>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
>>>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an
>>>> entire
>>>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
>>>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
>>>
>>> You're telling bullshit.
>> No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
>> distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that TrueCrypt does implement FDE.
> George Orwell wrote:
>
>
> >>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
> >>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
> >>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
> >>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
> >>
> >> You're telling bullshit.
> >
> > No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
> > distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that TrueCrypt does implement FDE.
Nope, sorry. You've already been smacked over the head with cites
proving that Truecrypt is NOT whole disk or FDE. You choosing to just
ignore facts and incessantly yap "IS TO IS TO IS TO!" won't change them
or make them cease to exist.
nobody@mixmaster.it (George Orwell) wrote in
news:33be814d060c112bd2426c8182aa6ebe@mixmaster.it :
....
> No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
> distributors even define their OWN products as FDE. The only ones
> doing so are a couple of idiots in a Usenet newsgroup. You, and your
> deflated partner nemo_outtaluck.
IOW it is near-universal practice for even the providers themselves to
describe such products as providing "full disk encryption" (although they
have an unencrypted bootable stub on the system drive).
Bestcrypt and Truecrypt provide almost identical core functionality to
those above (i.e. encrypt the full disk but require an unencrypted boot
stub) and so, following near-universal practice, are appropriately
described as providing "full disk encryption."
If you want to ignore accepted terminology - including that used within
the industry itself! - it is you who are out of step and not the rest of
the world.
> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> >I take it you're oblivious to the fact that Bruce Schneier himself
> >recommends *not* using twofish, right?
>=20
> The question is, do _you_ know _why_ he says that?
Of course I do.
Most of you ACF morons apparently didn't even realize he HAD said it.
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
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:50:01 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> George Orwell wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
>> >>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
>> >>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
>> >>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
>> >>
>> >> You're telling bullshit.
>> >
>> > No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
>> > distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
>>
>>
>> Which doesn't change the fact that TrueCrypt does implement FDE.
>
>Nope, sorry. You've already been smacked over the head with cites
>proving that Truecrypt is NOT whole disk or FDE. You choosing to just
>ignore facts and incessantly yap "IS TO IS TO IS TO!" won't change them
>or make them cease to exist.
> nobody@mixmaster.it (George Orwell) wrote in
> news:33be814d060c112bd2426c8182aa6ebe@mixmaster.it :
>
> ...
> > No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products'
> > producers or distributors even define their OWN products as
> > FDE. The only ones doing so are a couple of idiots in a Usenet
> > newsgroup. You, and your deflated partner nemo_outtaluck.
>
> Safeboot (Safeboot/Mcaffee) describes its product as "full-disk
> encryption"
> http://www.safeboot.com/products/endpointencryption/
>
> Winmagic (SecureDoc) describes its product as "full disk
> encryption" http://www.winmagic.com/corporate_info/20070424.asp
>
> Utimaco (Safeguard Easy) describes its product as "full hard disk
> encryption"
> http://americas.utimaco.com/
>
> Entrust (Entelligence) describes its product as "full disk
> encrytpion" http://www.entrust.com/laptop-security/index.htm
>
> Checkpoint (Pointsec) describes its product as "full disk
> encrytpion" http://www.checkpoint.com/products/datasecurity/pc/
>
> Safenet (Protectdrive) describes its product as "full-disk
> encryption" http://www.safenet-
> inc.com/products/data_at_rest_protection/Protectdrive.asp
>
> PGP Corp (WholeDisk) describes its product as "full disk
> encryption"
> http://www.pgp.com/newsroom/mediarel...wholedisk.html
>
> Securstar (Drivecrypt Plus Pack) describes its product as "full
> disk encryption"
> http://www.securstar.com/products_drivecryptpp.php
>
> IOW it is near-universal practice for even the providers
> themselves to describe such products as providing "full disk
> encryption" (although they have an unencrypted bootable stub on
> the system drive).
The stub doesn't have anything to do with it you obsessively
stragrabbing nitwit. Truecrypt and Bestcrypt aren't full disk
encryption programs. Learn to live with that and quit trying to
redefine them just to sooth your bruised ego.
>
> Bestcrypt and Truecrypt provide almost identical core
> functionality to those above (i.e. encrypt the full disk but
> require an unencrypted boot stub) and so, following
No nitwit, they don't.
> near-universal practice, are appropriately described as providing
> "full disk encryption."
No nitwit, it isn't.
>
> If you want to ignore accepted terminology - including that used
> within the industry itself! - it is you who are out of step and
> not the rest of the world.
You're the one ignoring accepted terminology here nitwit. Even
Jetico and Truecrypt don't define THEIR OWN PRODUCTS the way you
and Goobersnot are trying to. You've been spanked by those
definitions repeatedly, spanked by independent cites that refuse to
define them the way your two nitwits are trying to, and spanked by
at least a couple independent definitions of WD/FD that clearly
show Truecrypt and Bestcrypt don't fall into that category.
How much spanking is enough for nitwits like you anyway?
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in
news:34382b402c0109b90eeb4e0ce526f638@mixmaster.it :
> Kristian Gj=C3=B8steen wrote:
>
>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> >I take it you're oblivious to the fact that Bruce Schneier himself
>> >recommends *not* using twofish, right?
>>
>> The question is, do _you_ know _why_ he says that?
>
> Of course I do.
>
> Most of you ACF morons apparently didn't even realize he HAD said it.
Krazee Brenda wrote:
>
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:29:41 +0000, me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> I have a simple text file, less than 64KB, containing all the
>> unique passwords I use for websites. I want to encrypt it in as
>> secure a manner as possible on a Windows XP box. I don't need
>> all these other fancy features, just a simple "type in my
>> passphrase, see the text file" system. Any recommendations?
>> It doesn't need to be free.
>
>Axcrypt, Twofish (with GUI)
"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."
How many times does your dumb ass need to be swatted across the nose?
> You're the one ignoring accepted terminology here nitwit. Even
> Jetico and Truecrypt don't define THEIR OWN PRODUCTS the way you
> and Goobersnot are trying to. You've been spanked by those
> definitions repeatedly, spanked by independent cites that refuse to
> define them the way your two nitwits are trying to, and spanked by
> at least a couple independent definitions of WD/FD that clearly
> show Truecrypt and Bestcrypt don't fall into that category.
>
> How much spanking is enough for nitwits like you anyway?
I had to finally accept that he masochistically enjoys the spanking.
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>Kristian Gj=C3=B8steen wrote:
>
>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> >I take it you're oblivious to the fact that Bruce Schneier himself
>> >recommends *not* using twofish, right?
>>=20
>> The question is, do _you_ know _why_ he says that?
>
>Of course I do.
So why do you, eh, sorry, why does Nomen Nescio say what he says, then?
>Most of you ACF morons apparently didn't even realize he HAD said it.
I take it you are unfamiliar with this thing called cross-posting?
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:50:01 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >Sebastian G. wrote:
> >
> >> George Orwell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
> >> >>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
> >> >>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
> >> >>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're telling bullshit.
> >> >
> >> > No, you're full of bullshit. Neither of those products' producers or
> >> > distributors even define their OWN products as FDE.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which doesn't change the fact that TrueCrypt does implement FDE.
> >
> >Nope, sorry. You've already been smacked over the head with cites
> >proving that Truecrypt is NOT whole disk or FDE. You choosing to just
> >ignore facts and incessantly yap "IS TO IS TO IS TO!" won't change them
> >or make them cease to exist.
>
> Is to what?
Try reading really slowly and sounding out all the words.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote
in news:bb99cc26dc49bc02c46f1065f6f6300a@remailer.cyb eriade.it:
> nemo_outis wrote:
....
>> Safeboot (Safeboot/Mcaffee) describes its product as "full-disk
>> encryption"
>> http://www.safeboot.com/products/endpointencryption/
>>
>> Winmagic (SecureDoc) describes its product as "full disk
>> encryption" http://www.winmagic.com/corporate_info/20070424.asp
>>
>> Utimaco (Safeguard Easy) describes its product as "full hard disk
>> encryption"
>> http://americas.utimaco.com/
>>
>> Entrust (Entelligence) describes its product as "full disk
>> encrytpion" http://www.entrust.com/laptop-security/index.htm
>>
>> Checkpoint (Pointsec) describes its product as "full disk
>> encrytpion" http://www.checkpoint.com/products/datasecurity/pc/
>>
>> Safenet (Protectdrive) describes its product as "full-disk
>> encryption" http://www.safenet-
>> inc.com/products/data_at_rest_protection/Protectdrive.asp
>>
>> PGP Corp (WholeDisk) describes its product as "full disk
>> encryption"
>> http://www.pgp.com/newsroom/mediarel...wholedisk.html
>>
>> Securstar (Drivecrypt Plus Pack) describes its product as "full
>> disk encryption"
>> http://www.securstar.com/products_drivecryptpp.php
>>
>> IOW it is near-universal practice for even the providers
>> themselves to describe such products as providing "full disk
>> encryption" (although they have an unencrypted bootable stub on
>> the system drive).
>
> The stub doesn't have anything to do with it you obsessively
> stragrabbing nitwit. Truecrypt and Bestcrypt aren't full disk
> encryption programs. Learn to live with that and quit trying to
> redefine them just to sooth your bruised ego.
>
>>
>> Bestcrypt and Truecrypt provide almost identical core
>> functionality to those above (i.e. encrypt the full disk but
>> require an unencrypted boot stub) and so, following
>> near-universal practice, are appropriately described as providing
>> "full disk encryption."
>>
>> If you want to ignore accepted terminology - including that used
>> within the industry itself! - it is you who are out of step and
>> not the rest of the world.
>
> You're the one ignoring accepted terminology here nitwit.
Nope, dope. It's been longtanding near-universal industry practice,
dating back to Scramdisk days and before, to call an OTFE system that
encrypts the full hard disk (except a bootstub) "full disk" encryption.
And the terminology still dominantly persists today - I cited 8 OTFE
providers who describe their products as "full disk" enbcryption.
Nope, dope. It's been longtanding near-universal industry practice, dating
back to Scramdisk days and before, to call an OTFE system that encrypts the
full hard disk (except a bootstub) "full disk" encryption.
And the terminology still dominantly persists today - I cited 8 OTFE
providers who describe their products as "full disk" enbcryption.
On 15 Feb, 19:32, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> Sebastian G. wrote:
> > Krazee Brenda wrote:
>
> > > The only question is <drum roll>
>
> > > Is it whole disc encryption and/or OTFE?
>
> > TrueCrypt can encrypt entire disks/volumes, and this has been there since at
> > least version 4.0.
>
> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
>
>
>
> > I would still refrain from using it, because it's sadly full of security
> > vulnerabilities. Pretty much like any other FDE software out there. :-(
>
> Rubbish. Your "vulnerability" hasn't been addresses because it's not a
> vulnerability at all.
Sorry to ask, but why is the difference between full disk encryption
and partition encryption so important?
Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote in
news:ff25b33e-b81a-449e-ad6f-44e98467aab4@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Sorry to ask, but why is the difference between full disk encryption
> and partition encryption so important?
It isn't important.
But to accomodate those who obstinately and perversely think it is, I gave
a workaround many posts back: Overwrite track 0 (the first 63 sectors) with
random rubbish after each session and restore track 0 before the next
session (most conveniently from the rescue/restore media).
You can read endless variations on this theme (and others, such a booting
from USB, etc. and then handing off to the HD) in the Truecrypt forums.
"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in news:61ottoF20gh03U1
@mid.dfncis.de:
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>> Truecrypt and Bestcrypt aren't full disk
>> encryption programs.
>
>
> TrueCrypt is. Why do you think it isn't?
Just checking, but if I have a separate disk (D:) and encrypt all of it -
using Truecrypt-, with the boot stuff on some other disc (either C: or some
bootCD) : Is Truecrypt being used as full disc encryption?
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in news:61ottoF20gh03U1
> @mid.dfncis.de:
>
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>
>>> Truecrypt and Bestcrypt aren't full disk
>>> encryption programs.
>>
>> TrueCrypt is. Why do you think it isn't?
>
> Just checking, but if I have a separate disk (D:) and encrypt all of it -
> using Truecrypt-, with the boot stuff on some other disc (either C: or some
> bootCD) : Is Truecrypt being used as full disc encryption?
If your separate disk D: refers to a different physical volume: Yes.
> On 15 Feb, 19:32, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>> Krazee Brenda wrote:
>>>> The only question is <drum roll>
>>>> Is it whole disc encryption and/or OTFE?
>>> TrueCrypt can encrypt entire disks/volumes, and this has been there since at
>>> least version 4.0.
>> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
>> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
>> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
>> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
Sorry to ask, but since TrueCrypt encrypts entire volume including the
partition table, why shouldn't it be called?
>>> I would still refrain from using it, because it's sadly full of security
>>> vulnerabilities. Pretty much like any other FDE software out there. :-(
>> Rubbish. Your "vulnerability" hasn't been addresses because it's not a
>> vulnerability at all.
>
> Sorry to ask, but why is the difference between full disk encryption
> and partition encryption so important?
Obviously: The partition table leaks information about the partition layout
and the filesystems. It also allows for distinguish from random data.
bealoid <signup@bealoid.co.uk> wrote in
news:Xns9A46E140D211YAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.38:
> Just checking, but if I have a separate disk (D:) and encrypt all of
> it - using Truecrypt-, with the boot stuff on some other disc (either
> C: or some bootCD) : Is Truecrypt being used as full disc encryption?
>
> And if not, why not?
There are many OTFE programs that are capable of encrypting *all*
partitions on a HD used to store *data.* Some, by treating the HD as a
superfloppy, even encrypt track 0 on a *data* drive (Truecrypt refers to
this as device encryption whether the device is a USB stick or a HD).
Thus all partitions on all HDs could be encrypted with one very important
exception: the boot/system partition (e.g., the Windows partition). For
instance, earlier versions of Truecrypt (to 4.3a) could do this.
However, the term "full disk" encryption is generally reserved to mean
capable of encrypting all partitons on all HDs *including the boot/system
partition* - IOW, *all* partitions on *all* HDs. However, an unencrypted
bootstub on track 0 of the boot/system HD is still required to let the
computer boot. Truecrypt only added this extremely useful feature
(i.e., encrypting the Windows system partition) in version 5, thereby
becoming full disk encryption.
Regards,
PS The twits who continue to stridently reply to my posts object to this
longstanding, near-universal useage of the term "full disk." They would
reserve the term for an OTFE system that could encrypt all partitions on
all drives *including track 0." The problem is that they are speaking
about the null set, since no OTFE program for Windows, as delivered, is
capable of this without hacks.
It can be done, of course, but only by tricks/hacks: the unencrypted
bootstub code (and related info) have to be moved to some other device,
typically a removable one such a a USB pendrive (or a CD, or over the
network, etc.). This would allow all permanently mounted HDs to have all
partitions encryypted and also their HD track 0s. Some folks have hacked
Truecrypt to do exactly this (in a number of slightly different ways) -
it is an avidly discussed topic on the Truecrypt forums.
Alternatively (and slightly inconveniently) track 0 can be overwritten
with random garbage at the end of each session and restored (typically
from the OTFE vendor's recovery diskette/CD) at the start of the next
session.
On 16 Feb, 23:31, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> Vend wrote:
> > On 15 Feb, 19:32, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> > <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> >> Sebastian G. wrote:
> >>> Krazee Brenda wrote:
> >>>> The only question is <drum roll>
> >>>> Is it whole disc encryption and/or OTFE?
> >>> TrueCrypt can encrypt entire disks/volumes, and this has been there since at
> >>> least version 4.0.
> >> That doesn't make it WD/FD according to any accepted definition of the
> >> term. The happenstance that a partition of volume can consume an entire
> >> device is irrelevant. Products like Truecrypt and Bestcrypt are not
> >> whole disk encryption, and don't pretend to be.
>
> Sorry to ask, but since TrueCrypt encrypts entire volume including the
> partition table, why shouldn't it be called?
>
> >>> I would still refrain from using it, because it's sadly full of security
> >>> vulnerabilities. Pretty much like any other FDE software out there. :-(
> >> Rubbish. Your "vulnerability" hasn't been addresses because it's not a
> >> vulnerability at all.
>
> > Sorry to ask, but why is the difference between full disk encryption
> > and partition encryption so important?
> Obviously: The partition table leaks information about the partition layout
> and the filesystems.
So?
> It also allows for distinguish from random data.
So? It's not like people would keep random data in their hard drives
anyway.
Re: TrueCrypt 5.0a - Non KakaWare 
Linear Mode
