Which Drive Encryptor for this?

Discussion in 'Storage Devices' started by doofus, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. doofus

    doofus Guest

    I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.

    But my requirements are kinda dated. I need something that will make
    large containers or partitions around 50GB but is accessible under both
    windoze 98se and XP. Drivecrypt limits its 98 accessibility to containers
    of max. 4 GB-no good for my purposes.

    I need something reliable that I can use across different cafe computers
    from the usb port without having to install it on each machine also.

    Any ideas? Thanks.
     
    doofus, Feb 12, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. doofus

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    On 12/02/2011 10:25 AM, doofus wrote:
    > I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    > program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.
    >
    > But my requirements are kinda dated. I need something that will make
    > large containers or partitions around 50GB but is accessible under both
    > windoze 98se and XP. Drivecrypt limits its 98 accessibility to containers
    > of max. 4 GB-no good for my purposes.


    Stop using Windows 98. What's the point in keeping that ancient thing
    around, especially when you're travelling.

    > I need something reliable that I can use across different cafe computers
    > from the usb port without having to install it on each machine also.
    >
    > Any ideas? Thanks.
     
    Yousuf Khan, Feb 12, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. doofus

    Arno Guest

    doofus <> wrote:
    > I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    > program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.


    You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    days of incarceration?

    > But my requirements are kinda dated. I need something that will make
    > large containers or partitions around 50GB but is accessible under both
    > windoze 98se and XP. Drivecrypt limits its 98 accessibility to containers
    > of max. 4 GB-no good for my purposes.


    Unless you drop the win98 requirement, you as likely out of luck.

    > I need something reliable that I can use across different cafe computers
    > from the usb port without having to install it on each machine also.


    Well. There is nothing usable without installation for win98.
    With XP it is difficult. What about using Linux, e.g. a
    Knoppix USB-Stick install with encrypted partition (all
    standard Knoppix fearures)? That does not require any installation,
    just a reboot. And a reboot is a very good idea anyways to get
    around spyware on computers not yours.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 12, 2011
    #3
  4. doofus

    Roger Blake Guest

    On 2011-02-12, doofus <> wrote:
    > I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    > program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.


    You might try Truecrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org). It has the
    capability of embedding a hidden encrypted container within an
    outer encrypted container in order to provide plausible deniability
    if forced by government thugs into revealing your pass code.
    However, the earliest version of Windows supported is Windows 2000.
    (You mentioned needing Win98 support. That's a problem, almost
    nothing runs on Windows 98 any more.) Truecrypt is cross-platform
    and also runs on Linux and Max OS-X. I routinely use it for encrypting
    data on USB flash drives that needs to be accessible on Windows
    and Linux.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

    "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
    protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
    an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
    resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Roger Blake, Feb 12, 2011
    #4
  5. doofus

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Arno <> was
    claimed to have wrote:

    >doofus <> wrote:
    >> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.

    >
    >You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    >passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    >days of incarceration?


    While true, your data is still safe and protected.

    Note that "refusing" might actually get you detained longer, and might
    violate other laws. Not having the decryption keys in your possession
    at all is a safer approach, and can be done by providing the decryption
    key to someone trustworthy.

    There's different approaches, a single person at your destination (since
    forcing them to reveal the key requires due process, whereas as the
    border none is required) is the easiest, if you have someone you trust.

    Better yet, split the key between someone at your destination and
    someone at your country of origin (who is not subject to US law at all),
    with both individuals being instructed to only hand over their key when
    you confirm arrival at your destination (and the individual at the
    destination confirms to the individual at origin that you have arrived
    -- Again, the idea is that there's no legal theory that would force
    either the individual at the border or at the destination to lie to a
    third party, so the most that will happen is the data will be
    confiscated and/or the traveler won't be allowed entry)
     
    DevilsPGD, Feb 12, 2011
    #5
  6. doofus

    gustav Guest

    Roger Blake <> wrote in news:20110212204453
    @news.eternal-september.org:

    > On 2011-02-12, doofus <> wrote:
    >> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.

    >
    > You might try Truecrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org). It has the
    > capability of embedding a hidden encrypted container within an
    > outer encrypted container in order to provide plausible deniability
    > if forced by government thugs into revealing your pass code.
    > However, the earliest version of Windows supported is Windows 2000.
    > (You mentioned needing Win98 support. That's a problem, almost
    > nothing runs on Windows 98 any more.) Truecrypt is cross-platform
    > and also runs on Linux and Max OS-X. I routinely use it for encrypting
    > data on USB flash drives that needs to be accessible on Windows
    > and Linux.
    >

    thanks for your reply one of the few that attempted to answer the
    questions. someone here suggested an earlier version of truecrypt might
    support 98se? do you happen to know for certain if earlier versions don't
    support 98se? also do you know if it might support larger partitions or
    containers?
     
    gustav, Feb 12, 2011
    #6
  7. doofus

    loopey Guest

    DevilsPGD <> wrote in
    news::

    > In message <> Arno <> was
    > claimed to have wrote:
    >
    >>doofus <> wrote:
    >>> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >>> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.

    >>
    >>You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    >>passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    >>days of incarceration?

    >
    > While true, your data is still safe and protected.
    >
    > Note that "refusing" might actually get you detained longer, and might
    > violate other laws. Not having the decryption keys in your possession
    > at all is a safer approach, and can be done by providing the decryption
    > key to someone trustworthy.
    >
    > There's different approaches, a single person at your destination (since
    > forcing them to reveal the key requires due process, whereas as the
    > border none is required) is the easiest, if you have someone you trust.
    >
    > Better yet, split the key between someone at your destination and
    > someone at your country of origin (who is not subject to US law at all),
    > with both individuals being instructed to only hand over their key when
    > you confirm arrival at your destination (and the individual at the
    > destination confirms to the individual at origin that you have arrived
    > -- Again, the idea is that there's no legal theory that would force
    > either the individual at the border or at the destination to lie to a
    > third party, so the most that will happen is the data will be
    > confiscated and/or the traveler won't be allowed entry)


    actually i think a safest approach is to wipe the drive after uploading ur
    data to an online storage site (maybe TSA in disguise, my God, we're never
    safe).
     
    loopey, Feb 12, 2011
    #7
  8. doofus

    Arno Guest

    loopey <> wrote:
    > DevilsPGD <> wrote in
    > news::


    >> In message <> Arno <> was
    >> claimed to have wrote:
    >>
    >>>doofus <> wrote:
    >>>> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >>>> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.
    >>>
    >>>You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    >>>passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    >>>days of incarceration?

    >>
    >> While true, your data is still safe and protected.
    >>
    >> Note that "refusing" might actually get you detained longer, and might
    >> violate other laws. Not having the decryption keys in your possession
    >> at all is a safer approach, and can be done by providing the decryption
    >> key to someone trustworthy.
    >>
    >> There's different approaches, a single person at your destination (since
    >> forcing them to reveal the key requires due process, whereas as the
    >> border none is required) is the easiest, if you have someone you trust.
    >>
    >> Better yet, split the key between someone at your destination and
    >> someone at your country of origin (who is not subject to US law at all),
    >> with both individuals being instructed to only hand over their key when
    >> you confirm arrival at your destination (and the individual at the
    >> destination confirms to the individual at origin that you have arrived
    >> -- Again, the idea is that there's no legal theory that would force
    >> either the individual at the border or at the destination to lie to a
    >> third party, so the most that will happen is the data will be
    >> confiscated and/or the traveler won't be allowed entry)


    > actually i think a safest approach is to wipe the drive after uploading ur
    > data to an online storage site (maybe TSA in disguise, my God, we're never
    > safe).


    If you run your own server, it will either already be compromised
    or safe. But, yes, I completely agree that this is the right
    approach. In fact I have a laptop "travel" drive for the US
    that only has a clean OS install (Linux and XP) on it.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 13, 2011
    #8
  9. doofus

    Arno Guest

    Roger Blake <> wrote:
    > On 2011-02-12, doofus <> wrote:
    >> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.


    > You might try Truecrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org). It has the
    > capability of embedding a hidden encrypted container within an
    > outer encrypted container in order to provide plausible deniability
    > if forced by government thugs into revealing your pass code.


    While nice in theory, and certainly well implemented in
    TrueCrypt, the problem is that the TrueCrypt documentation
    mentions the possibility. So what they will do is to
    just sent you for a few years to Gitmo and if you have
    not revealed the second passphrase by then (either because
    you are sutubborn or becasue there is none), it will not
    really matter.

    In fact, when crossing the US border with TrueCrypt as
    protection, I strongly advise to have the hidden container
    configured and the second passphrase ready to hand over...

    The problem is that nothing bad happens to them when they
    torture you to hand over something you do not actually have,
    as long as they have a reasonable suspicion. The TrueCrypt
    handbook gives them that. Also see http://xkcd.com/538/

    So what to do? I think the only thing reasonable is to
    not have encrypted data on your person in an US border
    cross. This also means wiping free space with zeros,
    (not random data) just to be sure. Then store the data
    in encrypted form on the net somewhere safe, download
    and decrypt after the border cross. Before crossing the
    border again, wipe all data by overwriting with zeros.

    Side note: Incredible. I would have expected these
    measures to be necessary when going into the USSR of
    old, but not ever for the US. How times can change...

    > However, the earliest version of Windows supported is Windows 2000.
    > (You mentioned needing Win98 support. That's a problem, almost
    > nothing runs on Windows 98 any more.) Truecrypt is cross-platform
    > and also runs on Linux and Max OS-X. I routinely use it for encrypting
    > data on USB flash drives that needs to be accessible on Windows
    > and Linux.


    It is a good product. Cross-platform support is limited to
    normal containers, OS encryption is only available on Windows.
    However there it is really done right: You can transparently
    encrypt (and permenanetly decrypt if needed) an exisitng
    OS installation. Did that recently for the Win7 partition
    of my work Laptop. For Linux I use dm-crypt or LUKS.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 13, 2011
    #9
  10. doofus

    Arno Guest

    Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
    > On 12/02/2011 10:25 AM, doofus wrote:
    >> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.
    >>
    >> But my requirements are kinda dated. I need something that will make
    >> large containers or partitions around 50GB but is accessible under both
    >> windoze 98se and XP. Drivecrypt limits its 98 accessibility to containers
    >> of max. 4 GB-no good for my purposes.


    > Stop using Windows 98. What's the point in keeping that ancient thing
    > around, especially when you're travelling.


    Indeed. Or maybe virtualize it and use it inside vmware player
    or some other vortualization environment.

    Arno

    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 13, 2011
    #10
  11. doofus

    Alfonson Guest

    Arno <> wrote in news::

    > doofus <> wrote:
    >> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver encryption
    >> program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.

    >
    > You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    > passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    > days of incarceration?
    >
    >> But my requirements are kinda dated. I need something that will make
    >> large containers or partitions around 50GB but is accessible under
    >> both windoze 98se and XP. Drivecrypt limits its 98 accessibility to
    >> containers of max. 4 GB-no good for my purposes.

    >
    > Unless you drop the win98 requirement, you as likely out of luck.
    >
    >> I need something reliable that I can use across different cafe
    >> computers from the usb port without having to install it on each
    >> machine also.

    >
    > Well. There is nothing usable without installation for win98.
    > With XP it is difficult. What about using Linux, e.g. a
    > Knoppix USB-Stick install with encrypted partition (all
    > standard Knoppix fearures)? That does not require any installation,
    > just a reboot. And a reboot is a very good idea anyways to get
    > around spyware on computers not yours.
    >
    > Arno


    You're partly wrong. Drivecrypt works under 98SE but only for containers up
    to 4GB. Under XP it will do partitions much larger. Also many cafes disable
    usb boot so there goes your idea of using a linux usb stick. Drivecrypt has
    a mode that does not require installation for access to the encrypted
    volumes.
     
    Alfonson, Feb 13, 2011
    #11
  12. Arno <> wrote in news::

    > loopey <> wrote:
    >> DevilsPGD <> wrote in
    >> news::

    >
    >>> In message <> Arno <>
    >>> was claimed to have wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>doofus <> wrote:
    >>>>> I am going to be doing some traveling and I need a driver
    >>>>> encryption program to keep the facist nosey TSA out of my data.
    >>>>
    >>>>You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
    >>>>passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
    >>>>days of incarceration?
    >>>
    >>> While true, your data is still safe and protected.
    >>>
    >>> Note that "refusing" might actually get you detained longer, and
    >>> might violate other laws. Not having the decryption keys in your
    >>> possession at all is a safer approach, and can be done by providing
    >>> the decryption key to someone trustworthy.
    >>>
    >>> There's different approaches, a single person at your destination
    >>> (since forcing them to reveal the key requires due process, whereas
    >>> as the border none is required) is the easiest, if you have someone
    >>> you trust.
    >>>
    >>> Better yet, split the key between someone at your destination and
    >>> someone at your country of origin (who is not subject to US law at
    >>> all), with both individuals being instructed to only hand over their
    >>> key when you confirm arrival at your destination (and the individual
    >>> at the destination confirms to the individual at origin that you
    >>> have arrived -- Again, the idea is that there's no legal theory that
    >>> would force either the individual at the border or at the
    >>> destination to lie to a third party, so the most that will happen is
    >>> the data will be confiscated and/or the traveler won't be allowed
    >>> entry)

    >
    >> actually i think a safest approach is to wipe the drive after
    >> uploading ur data to an online storage site (maybe TSA in disguise,
    >> my God, we're never safe).

    >
    > If you run your own server, it will either already be compromised
    > or safe. But, yes, I completely agree that this is the right
    > approach. In fact I have a laptop "travel" drive for the US
    > that only has a clean OS install (Linux and XP) on it.
    >
    > Arno


    (just in case you don't like bellsouth)

    You're partly wrong. Drivecrypt works under 98SE but only for containers
    up to 4GB. Under XP it will do partitions much larger. Also many cafes
    disable usb boot so there goes your idea of using a linux usb stick.
    Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
    the encrypted volumes.
     
    byanyothername, Feb 13, 2011
    #12
  13. doofus

    Roger Blake Guest

    On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    > While nice in theory, and certainly well implemented in
    > TrueCrypt, the problem is that the TrueCrypt documentation
    > mentions the possibility. So what they will do is to
    > just sent you for a few years to Gitmo and if you have
    > not revealed the second passphrase by then (either because
    > you are sutubborn or becasue there is none), it will not
    > really matter.


    There is no way for them to know whether there is a second container.
    For that matter, there is no way for them to know on any given computer
    whether there is a Truecrypt container at all. You don't need to have
    Truecrypt resident on the machine. You could have the container in
    some innocuous file buried deep in the filesystem and the program files
    needed for decryption on a remote server that you can download later
    after you get through Checkpoint Charlie.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

    "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
    protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
    an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
    resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Roger Blake, Feb 13, 2011
    #13
  14. doofus

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <-september.org> Roger Blake
    <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >> While nice in theory, and certainly well implemented in
    >> TrueCrypt, the problem is that the TrueCrypt documentation
    >> mentions the possibility. So what they will do is to
    >> just sent you for a few years to Gitmo and if you have
    >> not revealed the second passphrase by then (either because
    >> you are sutubborn or becasue there is none), it will not
    >> really matter.

    >
    >There is no way for them to know whether there is a second container.


    Which means if they assume there is one, you can't prove otherwise.

    >For that matter, there is no way for them to know on any given computer
    >whether there is a Truecrypt container at all. You don't need to have
    >Truecrypt resident on the machine. You could have the container in
    >some innocuous file buried deep in the filesystem and the program files
    >needed for decryption on a remote server that you can download later
    >after you get through Checkpoint Charlie.


    All the more reason why having a container and a second container within
    is a good way to go, preferably with something legal but socially
    embarrassing, under the theory that they'll find your dirty little
    secret and move on.
     
    DevilsPGD, Feb 13, 2011
    #14
  15. doofus

    Arno Guest

    Roger Blake <> wrote:
    > On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >> While nice in theory, and certainly well implemented in
    >> TrueCrypt, the problem is that the TrueCrypt documentation
    >> mentions the possibility. So what they will do is to
    >> just sent you for a few years to Gitmo and if you have
    >> not revealed the second passphrase by then (either because
    >> you are sutubborn or becasue there is none), it will not
    >> really matter.


    > There is no way for them to know whether there is a second container.


    Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    No matter that this is not the truth.

    > For that matter, there is no way for them to know on any given computer
    > whether there is a Truecrypt container at all.


    Depends. If encrypted OS is used, it is rather obvious. If not,
    the TrueCrypt binaries will be installed. If it is really just
    the container and no software _and_ the container is not
    mapped to a file (no idea how to do that under Windows),
    then they can still find out that there is possible encrypted
    data, and procceed on the assumption that there is indeed.
    Hence my statement that any unused space should be overwritten
    wit zeros and not random data.

    > You don't need to have
    > Truecrypt resident on the machine. You could have the container in
    > some innocuous file buried deep in the filesystem


    Not good. Compressed data and possibly encrypted data can
    distinguished automatiovally (by detecting the compresseion
    algorithm, of which there are not so many). Entropy of good
    compressed date is close to encrypted data, but there is still
    structure.

    > and the program files
    > needed for decryption on a remote server that you can download later
    > after you get through Checkpoint Charlie.


    If the encrypoted container is small, this may work. But in that
    case why not have the whole data on that remote server? If the
    encrypted data is larger, this will draw attention on any
    reasonable autometed search.

    Bottom line: Encryption only really protects you if they do not
    have the right to demand the key. That is why this freedom is so
    important. Look at the UK: If you claim to have forgotten the key,
    or if you use my method of blanking disk drives (map in cryptsetup
    with random key and then overwerite with zeros), and they have
    any uspicion (which is easy to generate or fake, nobody says they
    are playing fair and often they do not), you can go to prison for
    a few months. This can happen to you for doing something that
    only _looks_ like plausible deniability. Just call you a
    "terror sympathiser" or something like that and it will be easy to
    do to you. And they even have motive: If nobody dares to use
    the plausible deniability defense, their job gets easier.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 13, 2011
    #15
  16. doofus

    Roger Blake Guest

    On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    > Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    > procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    > all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    > No matter that this is not the truth.


    Then you are screwed for simply carrying any computer or storage
    device. Since there is no way to know for certain whether there is encrypted
    data present those in power may simply assume away as they please.

    It is important to assess the level of threat in order to take appropriate
    measures. TSA thugs tend to be poorly-trained equal-opportunity employees
    who will be looking for obvious signs of contraband or other suspicious items.
    They are not equipped to perform a full forensic analysis of every system
    that crosses their path, they are looking for imbeciles who have obvious
    pirated movies or kiddie porn stored openly. For the ordinary traveler
    if you don't give them a reason to search for encrypted data they are not
    likely to discover it is there.

    Of course one must be more creative when dealing with higher-up thugs who
    have more authority and means at their disposal.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

    "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
    protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
    an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
    resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Roger Blake, Feb 13, 2011
    #16
  17. doofus

    Arno Guest

    Roger Blake <> wrote:
    > On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >> Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    >> procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    >> all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    >> No matter that this is not the truth.


    > Then you are screwed for simply carrying any computer or storage
    > device. Since there is no way to know for certain whether there is encrypted
    > data present those in power may simply assume away as they please.


    It is actually very simple to show the converse. If there is no
    random-looking data that compresses badly and is not obviously
    compressed, then there is no encrypted data (disregarding
    steganography). A Truecrypt container is rather visible and
    can be automatically detected.

    > It is important to assess the level of threat in order to take appropriate
    > measures. TSA thugs tend to be poorly-trained equal-opportunity employees
    > who will be looking for obvious signs of contraband or other suspicious items.
    > They are not equipped to perform a full forensic analysis of every system
    > that crosses their path, they are looking for imbeciles who have obvious
    > pirated movies or kiddie porn stored openly. For the ordinary traveler
    > if you don't give them a reason to search for encrypted data they are not
    > likely to discover it is there.


    Or they may have some neat "contraband analyzer" that they will
    require you to boot from. Reportedly, UK customs already did
    that some time ago. Of course thay will only do that after
    singeling you out for extra screening.

    > Of course one must be more creative when dealing with higher-up thugs who
    > have more authority and means at their disposal.


    I strongly advise against any "creativity". You are in a "no civil
    rights" zone when dealing with US immigration and customs.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 14, 2011
    #17
  18. doofus

    Jim Brown Guest

    Arno wrote:
    > Roger Blake <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >>> While nice in theory, and certainly well implemented in
    >>> TrueCrypt, the problem is that the TrueCrypt documentation
    >>> mentions the possibility. So what they will do is to
    >>> just sent you for a few years to Gitmo and if you have
    >>> not revealed the second passphrase by then (either because
    >>> you are sutubborn or becasue there is none), it will not
    >>> really matter.

    >
    >> There is no way for them to know whether there is a second container.

    >
    > Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    > procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    > all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    > No matter that this is not the truth.
    >
    >> For that matter, there is no way for them to know on any given
    >> computer whether there is a Truecrypt container at all.

    >
    > Depends. If encrypted OS is used, it is rather obvious. If not,
    > the TrueCrypt binaries will be installed. If it is really just
    > the container and no software _and_ the container is not
    > mapped to a file (no idea how to do that under Windows),
    > then they can still find out that there is possible encrypted
    > data, and procceed on the assumption that there is indeed.
    > Hence my statement that any unused space should be overwritten
    > wit zeros and not random data.
    >
    >> You don't need to have
    >> Truecrypt resident on the machine. You could have the container in
    >> some innocuous file buried deep in the filesystem

    >
    > Not good. Compressed data and possibly encrypted data can
    > distinguished automatiovally (by detecting the compresseion
    > algorithm, of which there are not so many). Entropy of good
    > compressed date is close to encrypted data, but there is still
    > structure.
    >
    >> and the program files
    >> needed for decryption on a remote server that you can download later
    >> after you get through Checkpoint Charlie.

    >
    > If the encrypoted container is small, this may work. But in that
    > case why not have the whole data on that remote server? If the
    > encrypted data is larger, this will draw attention on any
    > reasonable autometed search.
    >
    > Bottom line: Encryption only really protects you if they do not
    > have the right to demand the key. That is why this freedom is so
    > important. Look at the UK: If you claim to have forgotten the key,
    > or if you use my method of blanking disk drives (map in cryptsetup
    > with random key and then overwerite with zeros), and they have
    > any uspicion (which is easy to generate or fake, nobody says they
    > are playing fair and often they do not), you can go to prison for
    > a few months.


    No you can't.

    > This can happen to you for doing something that
    > only _looks_ like plausible deniability. Just call you a
    > "terror sympathiser" or something like that and it will be easy to
    > do to you.


    They can't jail you for that.

    The most they can do is delay your movement thru customs etc.

    > And they even have motive: If nobody dares to use
    > the plausible deniability defense, their job gets easier.
     
    Jim Brown, Feb 14, 2011
    #18
  19. doofus

    Jim Brown Guest

    Arno wrote:
    > Roger Blake <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >>> Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    >>> procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    >>> all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    >>> No matter that this is not the truth.

    >
    >> Then you are screwed for simply carrying any computer or storage
    >> device. Since there is no way to know for certain whether there is
    >> encrypted data present those in power may simply assume away as they
    >> please.

    >
    > It is actually very simple to show the converse. If there is no
    > random-looking data that compresses badly and is not obviously
    > compressed, then there is no encrypted data (disregarding
    > steganography). A Truecrypt container is rather visible and
    > can be automatically detected.
    >
    >> It is important to assess the level of threat in order to take
    >> appropriate measures. TSA thugs tend to be poorly-trained
    >> equal-opportunity employees
    >> who will be looking for obvious signs of contraband or other
    >> suspicious items. They are not equipped to perform a full forensic
    >> analysis of every system that crosses their path, they are looking
    >> for imbeciles who have obvious pirated movies or kiddie porn stored
    >> openly. For the ordinary traveler
    >> if you don't give them a reason to search for encrypted data they
    >> are not likely to discover it is there.

    >
    > Or they may have some neat "contraband analyzer" that they will
    > require you to boot from. Reportedly, UK customs already did
    > that some time ago. Of course thay will only do that after
    > singeling you out for extra screening.
    >
    >> Of course one must be more creative when dealing with higher-up
    >> thugs who have more authority and means at their disposal.

    >
    > I strongly advise against any "creativity". You are in a "no civil
    > rights" zone when dealing with US immigration and customs.


    Thats a lie. The worst they can do is refuse you entry to their country.
     
    Jim Brown, Feb 14, 2011
    #19
  20. doofus

    Arno Guest

    Jim Brown <> wrote:
    > Arno wrote:
    >> Roger Blake <> wrote:
    >>> On 2011-02-13, Arno <> wrote:
    >>>> Yes. But do they need to care? My point is they can just
    >>>> procceed on the assumption that there is one, becasue after
    >>>> all "its the feature why somebody would use TrueCrupt".
    >>>> No matter that this is not the truth.

    >>
    >>> Then you are screwed for simply carrying any computer or storage
    >>> device. Since there is no way to know for certain whether there is
    >>> encrypted data present those in power may simply assume away as they
    >>> please.

    >>
    >> It is actually very simple to show the converse. If there is no
    >> random-looking data that compresses badly and is not obviously
    >> compressed, then there is no encrypted data (disregarding
    >> steganography). A Truecrypt container is rather visible and
    >> can be automatically detected.
    >>
    >>> It is important to assess the level of threat in order to take
    >>> appropriate measures. TSA thugs tend to be poorly-trained
    >>> equal-opportunity employees
    >>> who will be looking for obvious signs of contraband or other
    >>> suspicious items. They are not equipped to perform a full forensic
    >>> analysis of every system that crosses their path, they are looking
    >>> for imbeciles who have obvious pirated movies or kiddie porn stored
    >>> openly. For the ordinary traveler
    >>> if you don't give them a reason to search for encrypted data they
    >>> are not likely to discover it is there.

    >>
    >> Or they may have some neat "contraband analyzer" that they will
    >> require you to boot from. Reportedly, UK customs already did
    >> that some time ago. Of course thay will only do that after
    >> singeling you out for extra screening.
    >>
    >>> Of course one must be more creative when dealing with higher-up
    >>> thugs who have more authority and means at their disposal.

    >>
    >> I strongly advise against any "creativity". You are in a "no civil
    >> rights" zone when dealing with US immigration and customs.


    > Thats a lie. The worst they can do is refuse you entry to their country.


    Have a look at the respective laws and regulations....

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Feb 14, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Licensed to Quill

    Re: resuscitating hard drive which wont format FAT

    Licensed to Quill, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: Storage Devices
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    721
    Folkert Rienstra
    Jun 27, 2003
  2. Ben

    Which 160GB (ATA not SATA) drive?

    Ben, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Storage Devices
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    414
    Rod Speed
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. Knack
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    372
    Simon
    Oct 13, 2003
  4. Ian R
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    295
    Arno Wagner
    Jan 25, 2007
  5. markm75
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    166
    markm75
    Dec 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page