Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
The Mystery Of The TrueCrypt Encryption Software Shutdown
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
5/30/2014 | 1:36:46 PM
TruCrypt users
Anyone out there left high and dry by this? I'd love to hear some firsthand experience with the tool and what users plans are next.
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
5/30/2014 | 4:14:50 PM
Re: TruCrypt users
I do recall in 2009 a bootkit was developed called Stoned which could successfully bypass TrueCrypt. Stoned injects itself into the MBR, a record which remains unencrypted even if the hard disk itself is fully encrypted. During startup, the BIOS first calls the bootkit, which in turn starts the TrueCrypt boot loader. Stoned uses a "double forward" to redirect I/O interrupt 13h, which allows it to insert itself between the Windows calls and TrueCrypt.

I would like to point out that this attack DOES require either physical access to the PC with the user already logged in with admin rights or an end user must be enticed to execute the malware. This DOES NOT actually break the encryption but rather acts as a MITM attack.

TrueCrypt is simply not designed to handle this method of attack.

This method could be applied to other software based encryption such as BitLocker and PGP.

Another flaw is that TrueCrypt stores it's keys in RAM and has been confirmed to be vulnerable to a Cold Boot Attack. This is where the booted machine is powered off and the RAM modules are quickly frozen and the keys can be extracted.

Again, this method requires physical access to the machine that is powered on or suspended.

In conclusion, as long as the attacker has physical or administrative access to the system, software based encryption will never work.

 
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
5/30/2014 | 6:26:47 PM
http://truecrypt.ch/
I've never used TrueCrypt, but have always been aware of it as a FOSS user and supporter.  I find it interesting how quickly http://truecrypt.ch/ was raised with the seeming intent to continue TrueCrypt as a forked project.  In the FOSS world there is absolutely nothing odd about this; I'm forking a codebase right now, in fact.  But because this is TrueCrypt, one wonders at the motivation for the Swiss team.  I suspect there is a money pile waiting for the right group that can support TrueCrypt as a service provider for those IT shops using the software that would rather stagnate than evolve.  I think the fork is the right thing to do, provided the new team has the needed skills to move the project forward. 

Note:  Search off the phrase "TrueCrypt Developers Association. All rights reserved." and you will find many other projects that include embedded TrueCrypt code.  Food for thought...
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/31/2014 | 2:42:18 AM
Re: TruCrypt users
It's scary to see how software encryption will no longer help us to protect our data. I wonder what TruCrypt users will do next to ensure their data is kept safe. 
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/31/2014 | 2:44:36 AM
Re: TruCrypt users
@theb0x – thanks for sharing, does this mean that hackers can't get through without having physical access to the system?
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/31/2014 | 2:47:07 AM
Re: http://truecrypt.ch/
@christianabryant- I feel that these encryption tools need to evolve. Some of them are still in the initial versions (no one has taken steps to upgrade them as the threats increase). 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
5/31/2014 | 10:47:50 PM
Re: http://truecrypt.ch/
I agree, we need to understand that though its difficult to update encryption technologies its very necessary. Think of it as patching a security safeguard. Security tools need to evolve in hopes to combat volatile emergent threats. 
gev
50%
50%
gev,
User Rank: Moderator
6/2/2014 | 2:45:44 PM
Take it at face value
Right there at the top of the page, it says:

 

The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images.

 

How come the author ignores the simplest explanation?

Because then there would be mistery, and hence no article.
securityaffairs
50%
50%
securityaffairs,
User Rank: Ninja
6/2/2014 | 2:54:51 PM
Re: Take it at face value
@gev

You wrote: 

"The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images."

What does it mean? Have any idea of the number of downloads collected by TrueCrypt?

 

Do you believe that TrueCrypt users are only XP users?

I believe that there is much more.

 
AbeG
50%
50%
AbeG,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/16/2014 | 10:15:57 PM
Re: TruCrypt users
@shakeeb.  There are a number of alternatives for TrueCrypt.  I ran a search on alternative.to (http://alternativeto.net/software/truecrypt/) and looks like everyone should consider switching over to DiskCryptor.

I thought this was a compelling argument:

"The only open-source alternative to DiskCryptor that has comparable features is TrueCrypt. However, because of the restrictive license under which TrueCrypt is provided — the TrueCrypt Collective License — TrueCrypt cannot be classified as a truly free software, as it places limits on the use and modification of its source code by developers. There are other alternatives with similar functionality, but they are fully proprietary ones, which makes them unacceptable to use for protection of confidential data."
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17103
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
An Incorrect Default Permissions vulnerability in the BDLDaemon component of Bitdefender AV for Mac allows an attacker to elevate permissions to read protected directories. This issue affects: Bitdefender AV for Mac versions prior to 8.0.0.
CVE-2020-8009
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
AVB MOTU devices through 2020-01-22 allow /.. Directory Traversal, as demonstrated by reading the /etc/passwd file.
CVE-2019-17100
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
An Untrusted Search Path vulnerability in bdserviceshost.exe as used in Bitdefender Total Security 2020 allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code. This issue does not affect: Bitdefender Total Security versions prior to 24.0.12.69.
CVE-2019-17102
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
An exploitable command execution vulnerability exists in the recovery partition of Bitdefender BOX 2, version 2.0.1.91. The API method `/api/update_setup` does not perform firmware signature checks atomically, leading to an exploitable race condition (TOCTTOU) that allows arbitrary execution of syst...
CVE-2017-16112
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs:CVE-2017-15010. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2017-15010. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-15010 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to preven...