The only reason I didn't cite Compusec (although I've posted about them
for years) is that they say they encrypt the "entire" hard disk rather
than the "full" hard disk. But clearly the terminological usage of CE-
Infosys agrees with the other vendors even if they chose an equivalent
rather than identical adjective to describe their product. http://www.ce-
infosys.com/english/downloads/free_compusec/free_compusec_faq.html
> 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.
That a fact? So then why have you been wasting all this time acting
like a 4 year old trying to convince people one is the other?
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:47:54 +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)
>
> Are you saying Axcrypt uses Twofish? The web page at
> http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/Features.html says that
> it uses AES encryption with 128-bit keys.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:03:42 -0600, Bear Bottoms wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:06:03 -0600, Krazee Brenda
> <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Truecrypt is freeware, you DoltBare and just because these guys talk over
>> your head doesn't mean they aren't allowed in YOUR Bareland.
>
> LOL...who said it wasn't...it is listed on my Freeware website...duh. Talk
> about over your head...another galaxy comes to mind. :)
>
> --
> Bear Bottoms
> Freeware Website http://bearware.info
Like to take me on in a conversation about cryptology? PLEASE!! Of course
you don't, anymore than I would take you on in a conversation about the ins
and outs of running cocaine that ends up destroying millions of women and
their unborn fetus'.
>> I would still refrain from using it, because it's sadly full of security
>> vulnerabilities. Pretty much like any other FDE software out there. :-(
>
> What about TPM in Vi$ta? Better?
Didn't you altready say "Vista"? Could it be any more obviously insecure?
>> Obviously: The partition table leaks information about the partition layout
>> and the filesystems.
>
> So?
Encryption is supposed to provide concealment of all non-public information.
>> It also allows for distinguish from random data.
>
> So? It's not like people would keep random data in their hard drives
> anyway.
Quite the contrary. I fill every freshly bought (rewritable) media with
pseudorandom data for testing the storage. I overwrite every media I'm gonna
sell or throw away with pseudorandom data. So, unless I actually use the
media, they will be filled with pseudorandom data, so one shouldn't wonder
if they're in this state
Oh, and maybe I use FDE. That's why they might be filled with pseudorandom
data as well.
On 17 Feb, 12:10, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> Vend wrote:
> >> Obviously: The partition table leaks information about the partition layout
> >> and the filesystems.
>
> > So?
>
> Encryption is supposed to provide concealment of all non-public information.
And what is the point of concealing a partition table?
> >> It also allows for distinguish from random data.
>
> > So? It's not like people would keep random data in their hard drives
> > anyway.
>
> Quite the contrary. I fill every freshly bought (rewritable) media with
> pseudorandom data for testing the storage. I overwrite every media I'm gonna
> sell or throw away with pseudorandom data. So, unless I actually use the
> media, they will be filled with pseudorandom data, so one shouldn't wonder
> if they're in this state
>
> Oh, and maybe I use FDE. That's why they might be filled with pseudorandom
> data as well.
If the media is in your possession, it's reasonable to assume that it
contains valid data, thus if the data looks random it's can be assumed
that at least some of it is ciphertext.
And anyway, with partition encryption, you could clear the disk by
creating a single partition and filling it with random data. If the
encryption software doesn't add any plaintext header to the partition,
the cleared media will be indistinguishable from one containing
encrypted data.
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:03:42 -0600, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:06:03 -0600, Krazee Brenda
> > <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Truecrypt is freeware, you DoltBare and just because these guys talk over
> >> your head doesn't mean they aren't allowed in YOUR Bareland.
> >
> > LOL...who said it wasn't...it is listed on my Freeware website...duh. Talk
> > about over your head...another galaxy comes to mind. :)
> >
> > --
> > Bear Bottoms
> > Freeware Website http://bearware.info
>
> Like to take me on in a conversation about cryptology?
You betcha I do. Embarrassing incompetent gits with over inflated egos
is a hobby of mine.
We'll start with why the most notable member of Counterpane advises
people to use Rijndael rather then their own product. You apparently
didn't even have a clue he'd stated anything like that, let alone why.
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
> Nope, dope. It's been longtanding near-universal industry
You've been cited the industry opinion on the matter fool. You even
pointed at some of it yourself. It ALL says you're FOS.
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 17 Feb, 12:10, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
>> Vend wrote:
>>>> Obviously: The partition table leaks information about the partition layout
>>>> and the filesystems.
>>> So?
>> Encryption is supposed to provide concealment of all non-public information.
>
> And what is the point of concealing a partition table?
Exactly to not having the need for analyzing if the information in the
partition table is valuable or may lead to disclosure of valuable information.
Indeed, if the disc consists of more than one partition, the max size of the
partition puts a previously unknown upper limit on the max size of a file
stored in there. The filesystem used may provide information about the
operating system, and its capabilities may provide information for utilizied
features. F.e. if I know that the filesystem in question is FAT32, then I
can pretty safely exclude Windows NT 4.0 and earlier, and whatever oS is
actually installed, I'm sure that no ACLs can apply to the files;
consequently, gaining guest access to the OS wold already suffice.
> If the media is in your possession, it's reasonable to assume that it
> contains valid data,
up from the point I start using it.
> thus if the data looks random it's can be assumed
> that at least some of it is ciphertext.
.... or I haven't started using it, or I just sanitized it because I intend
stop using it.
> We'll start with why the most notable member of Counterpane advises
> people to use Rijndael rather then their own product.
Because Rinjdael's security proofs are much more elegant than TwoFish's. And
because for 128 bit keys it's faster. And because encryption and decryption
speed are more balanced.
From the point of resistance against crypto analysis and securiy margins,
TwoFish is much more preferable. And for 256 bit keys, it's also faster.
Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote:
>And what is the point of concealing a partition table?
Suppose your automated izi-to-use infidel-crushing attack tool creates
a certain partition layout when installed. You'll certainly want to keep
that signature hidden from snooping eyes.
In practice, hiding everything may be easier than determining exactly
what information must be protected.
>
>
>
> 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)
>
> Are you saying Axcrypt uses Twofish? The web page at
> http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/Features.html says that
> it uses AES encryption with 128-bit keys.
A perfect example of why you shouldn't rely on clueless rubes for
technical information, especially concerning security software..
> 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.
>
> most of the ACF have no idea who he is. :-/
Point taken. :)
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 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:20:03 -0600, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> me@privacy.net 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)
>>
>> Are you saying Axcrypt uses Twofish? The web page at
>> http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/Features.html says that
>> it uses AES encryption with 128-bit keys.
>
> A perfect example of why you shouldn't rely on clueless rubes for
> technical information, especially concerning security software..
>
Would it be too much to ask to carry this discussion on in your primary ng
and leave alt.comp.freeware out of this?
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> > Truecrypt and Bestcrypt aren't full disk
> > encryption programs.
>
>
> TrueCrypt is. Why do you think it isn't?
Neither one of them are. Why would you think otherwise when neither
they, nor anyone else but you and one other kook says they are?
> 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?
It does not. It *can* encrypt an entire device, but that's a completely
different thing from FDE. They're "similar", but not the same.
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >Kristian Gj=3DC3=3DB8steen 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?
> >>=3D20
> >> The question is, do _you_ know _why_ he says that?
> >
> >Of course I do.
>=20
> So why do you, eh, sorry, why does Nomen Nescio say what he says,
> then?
Because it's a fact. Bruce Schneier advises against using Twofish
and advises FOR using AES.
>=20
> >Most of you ACF morons apparently didn't even realize he HAD
> >said it.
>=20
> I take it you are unfamiliar with this thing called cross-posting?
I take it you are unfamiliar with the idiots posting from ACF?
>>We'll start with why the most notable member of Counterpane advises
>>people to use Rijndael rather then their own product.
>
> Bruce Schneier a _member_ of Counterpane?
Why is that wrong? He's a founding member, and "CTO" (whatever that is),
but that's still a member.
I think it's funny that Counterpane is now BT Counterpane. I'd be
interested to know how far good security goes through the rest of British
Telecom's organisation. :-O
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:28:47 -0600, Kristian Gjøsteen
<kristiag+news@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> Embarrassing incompetent gits with over inflated egos
>> is a hobby of mine.
>
> Is that what you are doing? I can see "embarrasing", "incompetent git"
> and "inflated ego", but not quite in this combination.
>
>> We'll start with why the most notable member of Counterpane advises
>> people to use Rijndael rather then their own product.
>
> Bruce Schneier a _member_ of Counterpane? Twofish a _product_ of
> Counterpane?
>
> I have a suggestion. The next time you want to inflate your ego, go
> somewhere other than sci.crypt.
>
I have a better suggestion...strip alt.comp.freeware off of this thread.
Re: TrueCrypt 5.0a - Non KakaWare 
Linear Mode
