Truecrypt 4.3 Released

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by nemo_outis, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. nemo_outis

    nemo_outis Guest

    nemo_outis, Mar 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nemo_outis

    Hexalon Guest

    On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, "nemo_outis" <> wrote:
    > http://www.truecrypt.org/
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > PS Main change: Vista ready


    This may sound like a dumb question but i have been burned many times
    with new versions not working with stuff created by old versions, ie.
    Symantec anti virus corp edition. I have 4.2a installed and have a
    partition that was created with this version. Will 4.3 be able to work
    with that partition? TIA
    Hexalon, Mar 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nemo_outis

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Hexalon" <> wrote in news:1174401275.306103.322760
    @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

    > On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, "nemo_outis" <> wrote:
    >> http://www.truecrypt.org/
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> PS Main change: Vista ready

    >
    > This may sound like a dumb question but i have been burned many times
    > with new versions not working with stuff created by old versions, ie.
    > Symantec anti virus corp edition. I have 4.2a installed and have a
    > partition that was created with this version. Will 4.3 be able to work
    > with that partition? TIA



    I do not speak for Truecrypt and ultimately you must make your own
    assessment of whther the new version is suitable for your circumstances.
    However, the version history, http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-
    history, does not indicate any loss of backward compatibility with existing
    partitions/container-files (although some encryption algorithms will no
    longer be supported for *creating* partitions/containers).

    Moreover, if you encounter difficulties you could always revert to an
    earlier version of Truecrypt. And in the worst case you could always fall
    back on your partition backups (you do have backups, right?)

    Now, with my avuncular due-diligence warnings out of the way, let me say
    that, if history is a guide, new versions of Truecrypt have always been
    very solid with respect to backwards compatibility.


    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Mar 20, 2007
    #3
  4. nemo_outis

    Gogarty Guest

    In article <Xns98F95A6C89877abcxyzcom@127.0.0.1>, says...
    >
    >
    >"Hexalon" <> wrote in news:1174401275.306103.322760
    >@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >> On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, "nemo_outis" <> wrote:
    >>> http://www.truecrypt.org/
    >>>
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> PS Main change: Vista ready

    >>
    >> This may sound like a dumb question but i have been burned many times
    >> with new versions not working with stuff created by old versions, ie.
    >> Symantec anti virus corp edition. I have 4.2a installed and have a
    >> partition that was created with this version. Will 4.3 be able to work
    >> with that partition? TIA

    >
    >
    >I do not speak for Truecrypt and ultimately you must make your own
    >assessment of whther the new version is suitable for your circumstances.
    >However, the version history, http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-
    >history, does not indicate any loss of backward compatibility with existing
    >partitions/container-files (although some encryption algorithms will no
    >longer be supported for *creating* partitions/containers).
    >
    >Moreover, if you encounter difficulties you could always revert to an
    >earlier version of Truecrypt. And in the worst case you could always fall
    >back on your partition backups (you do have backups, right?)
    >
    >Now, with my avuncular due-diligence warnings out of the way, let me say
    >that, if history is a guide, new versions of Truecrypt have always been
    >very solid with respect to backwards compatibility.
    >

    Thanks for the input. I will wait until I know more before I put an entire
    250 GB drive at risk. But TrueCrypt certainly has proved to be extremely
    robust.
    Gogarty, Mar 20, 2007
    #4
  5. nemo_outis

    Guest Guest

    "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    > http://www.truecrypt.org/
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    > PS Main change: Vista ready


    While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume is
    recognized or not.



    On the Security and Encryption FAQ - Revision 21.1.1 of Dr Who to be found
    at https://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantawiki/SecurityAndEncryptionFaq, it
    says:



    "[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
    identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as random
    garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to create the
    Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs claiming the partition
    is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather unhelpfully tell the world
    that it is obviously a Truecrypt created volume. I am at a loss to
    understand the logic of this, but there it is."



    But on the Truecrypt page at http://www.truecrypt.org/, it says:



    "2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished
    from random data)."



    Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
    that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
    there is something I am missing?
    Guest, Mar 21, 2007
    #5
  6. cemeqi wrote:

    > Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
    > that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
    > there is something I am missing?


    An *unmounted* volume cannot be differed from random data. Trying to mount
    a volume is implemented by trying all ciphers with the provided key and
    will be successful if the volume is actually a TrueCrypt volume.

    If you read the history, it tells that you cannot create any more new
    volume with some of the deprecated ciphers, but it will still recognize
    such volumes. Totally removing this cipher is scheduled for TrueCrypt v5.0.

    Thus, if you have such an old volume, it will still work. But you should
    really consider migration.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Mar 21, 2007
    #6
  7. nemo_outis

    Anonymous Guest

    <cemeqi> wrote:

    > "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    > > http://www.truecrypt.org/
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > >
    > > PS Main change: Vista ready

    >
    > While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume is
    > recognized or not.
    >
    >
    >
    > On the Security and Encryption FAQ - Revision 21.1.1 of Dr Who to be found
    > at https://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantawiki/SecurityAndEncryptionFaq, it
    > says:
    >
    >
    >
    > "[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
    > identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as random
    > garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to create the
    > Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs claiming the partition
    > is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather unhelpfully tell the world
    > that it is obviously a Truecrypt created volume. I am at a loss to
    > understand the logic of this, but there it is."
    >
    >
    >
    > But on the Truecrypt page at http://www.truecrypt.org/, it says:
    >
    >
    >
    > "2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished
    > from random data)."
    >
    >
    >
    > Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
    > that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
    > there is something I am missing?


    What it means is that "Dr. Who" is a clueless dullard. His FAQ is so
    riddled with mistakes, misinformation, FUD, and SPAM it's a joke. No
    reputable site even mirrors it any more.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    Anonymous, Mar 21, 2007
    #7
  8. nemo_outis

    nemo_outis Guest

    <cemeqi> wrote in news::

    > "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns98F8CFF119F5Dabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    >> http://www.truecrypt.org/
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >>
    >> PS Main change: Vista ready

    >
    > While we are at it I would like to clear up as to whether the volume
    > is recognized or not.
    >
    >
    >
    > On the Security and Encryption FAQ - Revision 21.1.1 of Dr Who to be
    > found at
    > https://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantawiki/SecurityAndEncryptionFaq, it
    > says:
    >
    >
    >
    > "[TrueCrypt] does not display any file header info to help a snooper
    > identify the file's purpose. The header is encrypted and shows as
    > random garbage. But it will identify which type of format was used to
    > create the Truecrypt volume. Despite Windows and other programs
    > claiming the partition is not formatted, Truecrypt will itself rather
    > unhelpfully tell the world that it is obviously a Truecrypt created
    > volume. I am at a loss to understand the logic of this, but there it
    > is."
    >
    >
    >
    > But on the Truecrypt page at http://www.truecrypt.org/, it says:
    >
    >
    >
    > "2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be
    > distinguished from random data)."
    >
    >
    >
    > Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date
    > or that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively,
    > that there is something I am missing?




    It means that there is an apparent discrepancy between the two sources.
    You may resolve that discrepancy in a number of ways, trading off
    convenience versus comprehensiveness. I suggest the best way, assuming
    you have the skills, is to check for yourself.

    Personally, I see this as a matter of little consequence one way or the
    other. A partition full of random data - with or without telltale
    headers, partition signatures, etc. - is a dead giveaway that encryption
    is being used. Couple that with the existence of Truecrypt drivers and
    corresponding registry entries (I assume a Windows OS) and the conviction
    that encryption is being used rises to a near certainty.


    Remember, truecrypt does not attempt to hide (other than superficially)
    the fact that it is being used - it is NOT a form of steganography.

    Regards,

    PS You could, I suppose, thoroughly scrub the registry, remove drivers,
    and diddle with the Truecrypt header (restoring it from external media
    before use and overwriting it afterwards) but this seems rather tiresome
    and likely to be neglected by all but the most fanatic.
    nemo_outis, Mar 21, 2007
    #8
  9. nemo_outis

    Guest Guest

    "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98FA54A3EC626abcxyzcom@127.0.0.1...

    > It means that there is an apparent discrepancy between the two sources.
    > You may resolve that discrepancy in a number of ways, trading off
    > convenience versus comprehensiveness. I suggest the best way, assuming
    > you have the skills, is to check for yourself.
    >
    > Personally, I see this as a matter of little consequence one way or the
    > other. A partition full of random data - with or without telltale
    > headers, partition signatures, etc. - is a dead giveaway that encryption
    > is being used. Couple that with the existence of Truecrypt drivers and
    > corresponding registry entries (I assume a Windows OS) and the conviction
    > that encryption is being used rises to a near certainty.
    >
    >
    > Remember, truecrypt does not attempt to hide (other than superficially)
    > the fact that it is being used - it is NOT a form of steganography.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > PS You could, I suppose, thoroughly scrub the registry, remove drivers,
    > and diddle with the Truecrypt header (restoring it from external media
    > before use and overwriting it afterwards) but this seems rather tiresome
    > and likely to be neglected by all but the most fanatic.


    My concern is more with the embedded volume. I don't mind if the external
    volume is recognized as encrypted. My concern is that the volume within the
    volume remains hidden. If it is possible to recognize the presence of the
    hidden volume within the external volume then it would defeats its purpose.
    That was my concern in the initial question too but I probably formulated it
    badly.
    Guest, Mar 22, 2007
    #9
  10. nemo_outis

    nemo_outis Guest

    <cemeqi> wrote in news::


    > My concern is more with the embedded volume. I don't mind if the
    > external volume is recognized as encrypted. My concern is that the
    > volume within the volume remains hidden. If it is possible to
    > recognize the presence of the hidden volume within the external volume
    > then it would defeats its purpose. That was my concern in the initial
    > question too but I probably formulated it badly.



    The Truecrypt documentation goes to some lengths to describe how the "inner
    embedded volume" is kept undetectable. If you are unsatisfied with the
    explanation then you must do your own tests (or scrounge about on google to
    see if some one has done this for you and if you are satisfied with their
    description/methodology/results).

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Mar 22, 2007
    #10
  11. nemo_outis

    Hexalon Guest

    On Mar 20, 8:28 pm, Sebastian Gottschalk <> wrote:
    > cemeqi wrote:
    > > Does this mean that the Security and Encryption FAQ is not up-to-date or
    > > that the TrueCrypt page is not entirely correct? Or, alternatively, that
    > > there is something I am missing?

    >
    > An *unmounted* volume cannot be differed from random data. Trying to mount
    > a volume is implemented by trying all ciphers with the provided key and
    > will be successful if the volume is actually a TrueCrypt volume.
    >
    > If you read the history, it tells that you cannot create any more new
    > volume with some of the deprecated ciphers, but it will still recognize
    > such volumes. Totally removing this cipher is scheduled for TrueCrypt v5.0.
    >
    > Thus, if you have such an old volume, it will still work. But you should
    > really consider migration.


    What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
    one be around? TIA
    Hexalon, Mar 23, 2007
    #11
  12. nemo_outis

    nemo_outis Guest

    nemo_outis, Mar 24, 2007
    #12
  13. nemo_outis

    Hexalon Guest

    On Mar 23, 9:46 pm, "nemo_outis" <> wrote:
    > "Hexalon" <> wrote innews::
    >
    > ...
    >
    > > What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
    > > one be around? TIA

    >
    > Read the full story for yourself:
    >
    > http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
    >
    > Regards,


    Thanks.
    Hexalon, Mar 24, 2007
    #13
  14. nemo_outis

    Rick Merrill Guest

    nemo_outis wrote:
    > "Hexalon" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > ...
    >> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
    >> one be around? TIA

    >
    > Read the full story for yourself:
    >
    > http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
    >
    > Regards,
    >


    Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
    (yeah, a bit of overkill!)
    Rick Merrill, Mar 24, 2007
    #14
  15. nemo_outis

    Guest Guest

    "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98FAC8758DB9Babcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    > <cemeqi> wrote in news::
    >
    >
    >> My concern is more with the embedded volume. I don't mind if the
    >> external volume is recognized as encrypted. My concern is that the
    >> volume within the volume remains hidden. If it is possible to
    >> recognize the presence of the hidden volume within the external volume
    >> then it would defeats its purpose. That was my concern in the initial
    >> question too but I probably formulated it badly.

    >
    >
    > The Truecrypt documentation goes to some lengths to describe how the
    > "inner
    > embedded volume" is kept undetectable. If you are unsatisfied with the
    > explanation then you must do your own tests (or scrounge about on google
    > to
    > see if some one has done this for you and if you are satisfied with their
    > description/methodology/results).


    Will try that some day. I must admit I have not as yet installed Truecrypt,
    part of the reason being what I have read in the reference above. I am still
    unclear as to why Dr. Who wrote such a thing but it seems that it is not
    such a clear-cut issue after all. Thanks.
    Guest, Mar 25, 2007
    #15
  16. nemo_outis

    Hexalon Guest

    On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, Rick Merrill <>
    wrote:
    > nemo_outis wrote:
    > > "Hexalon" <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > > ...
    > >> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
    > >> one be around? TIA

    >
    > > Read the full story for yourself:

    >
    > >http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history

    >
    > > Regards,

    >
    > Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
    > (yeah, a bit of overkill!)


    What algorithm do your firewalls use? RSA? AES? I use 256-bit AES
    because that algorithm seems to be a good trade off of speed and
    security.
    Hexalon, Mar 25, 2007
    #16
  17. nemo_outis

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Hexalon wrote:
    > On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, Rick Merrill <>
    > wrote:
    >> nemo_outis wrote:
    >>> "Hexalon" <> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>> ...
    >>>> What cipher's are going away? I currently use 256-bit AES. Will that
    >>>> one be around? TIA
    >>> Read the full story for yourself:
    >>> http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history
    >>> Regards,

    >> Our firewall uses 1024 bit encryption!
    >> (yeah, a bit of overkill!)

    >
    > What algorithm do your firewalls use? RSA? AES? I use 256-bit AES
    > because that algorithm seems to be a good trade off of speed and
    > security.
    >


    it's IPSEC; hope I wasn't too misleading:

    http://tinyurl.com/o7rxv
    Rick Merrill, Mar 27, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

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. nemo outis

    Truecrypt 3.0 has been released

    nemo outis, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    575
    Anonymous
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Ari Silversteinn

    Re: Truecrypt 4 Released!

    Ari Silversteinn, Nov 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    526
    traveler
    Nov 2, 2005
  3. nemo_outis
    Replies:
    352
    Views:
    7,843
    nemo_outis
    Mar 13, 2008
  4. nemo_outis

    Truecrypt 6.0 Released

    nemo_outis, Jul 6, 2008, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    464
    Sparky
    Jul 6, 2008
  5. nemo_outis

    New Version of Truecrypt Released: v6.1a

    nemo_outis, Dec 1, 2008, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    539
    nemo_outis
    Dec 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page