On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:38:01 +0100, Shaun Hollingworth
Post by Shaun HollingworthOn Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:33:29 +0800, thang ornithorhynchus
[...]
Post by thang ornithorhynchusAt last, intelligent comment! Thank you. May I comment as follows?
1. Truecrypt is much less user-friendly than DCPP, however because
separate partitions are its basis along with inability to write to
volumes which are not on encrypted partitions, it is potentially
leak-proof. Data simply cannot leak, except for residual electronic
charges in RAM on unplanned shutdown.
I understood other non-os partitionswere accessible pm TC, and indeed
that they couldn't be encrypted without destroying the data. It's some
months since I looked at TC and played around with it so I will have
to check out their latest version when I can get the time.
No. Data is quarantined to the hidden OS's volume unless the entire
target partition or device is encrypted - from the roots up. They
must be encrypted before writing to them, the encryption process does
destroy data.
Post by Shaun HollingworthPost by thang ornithorhynchus2. I much prefer the DCPP way of doing things, which is unfortunately
prone to leakage, but at least one can write from the hidden OS to any
available device, partition or file system. More user friendly
therefore.
Well the answer is to simply encrypt all those partitions you use.
DCPP doesn;t have a limit on the partitions that can be encrypted of
course.
Yes, and I would still be using DCPP except it needs to be installed
on FAT32 and Win 7 will only install on NTFS. Your problem when you
adapt DCPP to Win 7 is the way that the journalling FS works, as you
say it scribbles everywhere.
Post by Shaun HollingworthPost by thang ornithorhynchus3. The decoy OS with Truecrypt can, and should, be used all of the
time, thereby supporting PD. This is permissible due to separation of
partitions.
Same with the sacrificial outer volume, except this
doesn't work with Win 7 at the moment. With DCPP this is a no-no due
to the same partition being used and non-protection of the hidden OS,
therefore potential overwrite and destruction of the hidden OS.
The issue is this separation of that data, and the fact that the
hidden os and the normal os are on different areas of the disk, and
how to protect the hiddenOS without giving the game away that there is
a hiddenOS at all when the "outer" volume is in use. Such protection
requires some intervention which could reveal some knowledge of the
hidden os. Of course it could be disabled by yet a another set of
passwords intended to be given to the authorities....
See my comments to Carsten below. Under rule of law, there needs be
the presence of encrypted data _beyond a reasonable doubt_ for the
enforced provision of passwords per the UK laws etc. This doesn't
apply to uncivilized countries which use torture of course but they
are not OTFE major buyers anyhow. So, the presence of suspiciously
random data, providing headers cannot be distinguished, would not be
enough for courts of law in the UK for instance to punish a person for
not handing over pws.
Post by Shaun HollingworthI guess I need to study their source code and software a bit harder.
Currently I am a bit behind with it. The problem with NTFS is simply
that it is much more likely to scribble over your hidden area, if it
is on the same partition.
One could hide it in NTFS perhaps in some hidden or meta file however
when the main OS was up and running, I can't see how one would prevent
this from being detected by others, or perhaps defrag ruining things.
TC has some means of protecting hidden volumes. It undeniably works,
probably it is just first and last sector based and soon as a write op
takes place anywhere there, the whole partition becomes write
protected. Problem is with Win 7, it shuts out any data whatsoever
from the outer volume as soon as one stinking byte gets written
anywhere on the outer volume, let alone the inner. It is not working
properly at all, and you might get the steal on them if you can sort
this out quickly with Win 7.
By the way, I am open to testing for you, free copy of course etc :).
I have modded my Gigabyte bios to SLIC 2.1 so my OEM Win 7 thinks my
PC is a HP notebook running OEM Vista, works perfectly, so I am
actually beta testing TC (unknown to the unknown devs) on a RTM
Ultimate Win 7 OS. Work out this problem with the protection of the
hidden volume (analogous to how DCPP works anyhow) and you will steal
the march!
Post by Shaun HollingworthPost by thang ornithorhynchusThere is no other way to do it, and that would mean that
you follow Truecrypt's way of doing things.
NEVER EVER, EVER! ;)
I am proud of the fact that I (rather than those HiddenDevs at
TrueCrypt) was the first person to create a working hiddenOS on a
publicly released product, and I was the person who, (at least as far
as I know) invented containers which appear completely random (as
opposed to having an identifiable header on them) features that the
TrueCrypt Foundation make much of in their products.. (Source of sour
grapes I guess)
However I do have an idea how I intend to implement hiddenOS on
Windows Vista ad perhaps Windows 7 too. In this new plan the access to
the "outer" OS should also be completely safe, subject to one possible
single important exception.
As for TrueCrypt generally, if I were to use their software...
(which for obvious reasons I dont (I have less reason to trust their
clandestinely developed open source software than my own closed source
stuff simply because It is not closed source for me)
...the first thing I would ask them about, is why all the cloak and
dagger approach to their identity and their work. Some of the capable
work they've done, is quite staggering, given that they are doing it
for free. We certainly couldn't get people of this calibre to work for
nothing; we cannot even recruit people to do it for a very good living
wage. Indeed good low level developers are very hard to find at any
price.
Thus I am afraid my suspicions are aroused to some degree, because I
can only speculate on these guys, and their apparently altruistic
motives. Assuming they really are human beings (the most important
factor IMHO), this will mean they have to eat, clothe themselves and
pay thier bills etc. Very laudible then, if they are going off to do a
hard days work, and then coming home and working even harder for "The
TrueCrypt Foundation" for absolutely nothing, rather than going to the
pub for a pint; or meeting the girlfriend or whatever at the end of a
hard day...
Rightyo, all of this is news to me but I have just looked at some
Wikis and Wilder's forums, and you are right. Not only is their
identity unknown, but the domain is registered in the Antarctic -
false name. Damn. Now I'm paranoid, but then again the developer of
Tor was an employee of the US Naval Research Labs (I think) who
sponsored the project...
Here is a post by one Justin Troutman on Wilders
"Originally Posted by Justin Troutman
I used to contribute there quite often, with novel-like posts of
verbosity and concern, but, mysteriously, I tried logging in one day
to no avail. After numerous attempts to resolve the issue, including
contacting the forum administrators -- no luck. Even registering again
with another e-mail address -- not a free one, but an ISP-provided one
--- again, no luck. I'm not sure how closely this relates to the issue
you've mentioned. Regardless, I can still post my concerns about
TrueCrypt elsewhere, so not all is lost. "
Look, it well may be that NSA or some other spook agency has promoted
TC for the very reason that it has some obscure coding in it which is
so well hidden that it has not and will not be picked up through
expert, line by line, dissection. Has anyone done that anyway? So
that at some point, nuclear material is being discussed by Jihadis and
the threat to the US is so mortal that the backdoor is invoked.
But, once it happened, no one would ever again use TC. I can't see
that being the case but it could be a case of keeping the powder dry
until it is needed. For commercial and private users I don't think
this makes a whit of difference, it is unbreakable just like DCPP.
Post by Shaun HollingworthBack in my Scramdisk days, I also wanted to advance that project, and
though I got literally hundreds and hundreds of emails, I did't get
ANY offering assistance with device driver level development, apart
from the brilliant Paul Le Roux when we collaborated together on some
technical issues. It was he, who introduced me to SecurStar....
So, then, suddently, out of nowhere comes these unknown, unnamed
Truecrypt folk with all their vast experience of device driver coding,
such expertise easily allowing them to make the transition to the
difficult Vista environment and the like.
I therefore now cannot help but wonder if they are being bankrolled by
someone, perhaps even the US government. Far fetched ? There might
well be those forces who would benefit greately from the vast
majority of the worlds crypto users all employing exactly the same
software. It would make any attacks they might wish to make much
easier to mount than having to deal with multiple software systems as
was much more the case in the past. Yes we all have the source code.
We can all review it. Being able to do so is widely held to be a
panacea to assurances of security, but this only applies IMHO if
experts review it, and my guess is that many such people will have
done this to some degree. In spite of all that there is still a
nagging doubt in my mind about these people, their motives and this
software. This isn't sour grapes but simply speculation after a
rational examination of the facts at hand.
Shaun, solve the problems of DCPP installation on NTFS and protection
of the hidden volume from writing to the outer volume, all on WIn 7
(because it is a really good OS), and you will beat TC at their own
game. I have posted questions all over the TV forum about why this
write protection issue is happening under Win 7 and I have not had one
single response. They are either too arrogant, too busy, or haven't
yet realized how damn good an OS Win 7 is, to respond. I asked the
bloody devs to look into it, no response.
Damn, it just occurred to me, wonder if they have a NG for TC?
Post by Shaun HollingworthSuch a doubt will completely evaporate, if I could learn exactly who
these people actually are, who if anyone is backing them, and what
their motives really are. Also I am led to believe that posts can be
met with a good deal of hostility if queries are made regading the
identity of the people behind TC. I was told that someone even got
banned from the site because of that. If this is true, then I have to
wonder why that would be.
Please note that I don't accuse anyone of anything, and my comments
here are based on pure speculation, and my own gut feelings nothing
more.
In truth I have no more reason to air such suspicions than anyone
else, apart for the fact that I know from first hand experience how
hard some of this stuff is, especially the driver level code. But
others have done, and I note the responses people tell me, they then
get...
People might say that I started something similar myself over ten
years ago with Scramdisk. This is to some degree true. However I do
have to confess that my motives at the beginning were less than
completely altruistic though that did come later, for a time, whilst I
could afford it.. SD was developed because of an interest in the
subject in the hope that the company I owned a third of, would
diversify somewhat into this area, focussing on the corporate userbase
and allowing free use for individuals. During the initial involvment
with SD I used to call myself "Aman", The main reason for this, is
that I didn't want to reveal my identify until I had properly gauged
the reaction to Scramdisk. If it was rubbish then I am afraid I would
have remained anonymous. There was also the fact that I was unsure if
there would be any hostility to my releasing this stuff, and wanted to
protect myself against that. I "came out" when I knew that both were
not a problem.
My business partners late last century didn't want to know about SD,
so out it all went on the Internet, freeware, source and all, because
I thought it would be a shame just to completely waste it. Development
then continued as and when time permitted, usually during idle periods
at the office. Then my company went down in the ,dot com meltdown.
Shortly after, along came SecurStar to the employment rescue, as I had
no job and had to feed and clothe my kids and pay my bills..
Many thanks for the complements you've given me.
Regards,
Shaun.
Its a pleasure, Shaun. If you don't know it, you are held in the
highest regard by old timers who are not blessed with your skills.
cheers
thang