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
Data Security Decisions In A World Without TrueCrypt
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Robert McDougal
50%
50%
Robert McDougal,
User Rank: Ninja
6/18/2014 | 12:26:11 PM
Moving on from TrueCrypt
I tend to believe that the creators of TrueCrypt were approached by Microsoft with a deal they couldn't refuse.  I have no evidence to support that other than the recommendation of bitlocker.  Just call it a gut feeling.

As far as what to do now I would recommend looking into DiskCryptor .  While not as polished as TrueCrypt it does appear to be built upon solid security.
Randy Naramore
50%
50%
Randy Naramore,
User Rank: Ninja
6/18/2014 | 12:42:45 PM
Re: Moving on from TrueCrypt
"When one door closes another opens", truecrypt has been good but maybe it is time to check out some other options and when the money talks... Good point Robby. 
Bulos Qoqish
100%
0%
Bulos Qoqish,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/18/2014 | 12:31:02 PM
You're overlooking something...
I read your article about "what to do in the absence of TrueCrypt" with some interest; however, you are leaving out a few very important factors :


(1.) TrueCrypt - whatever its faults - was at least an Open Source application. Almost all commercial encryption systems (Bitlocker is the obvious example) are closed-source, meaning that one has to just take at face value, manufacturer representations that the cryptography involved is (a) correctly implemented and (b) free of "backdoors" to enable covert channel attacks by (for example) intelligence agencies. In the post-Snowden era, one would have to be crazily naive to be willing to accept this kind of assurance.


(2.) In the post-Snowden era, we must assume that all U.S.-invented, manufactured or owned software, including but not limited to the encryption systems that you advocate, have been compromised by the NSA and likely by other agencies such as the CIA, FBI, DIA, and just about anyone who wants to, under the USA PATRIOT Act and other applicable U.S. legislation. Bitlocker is the most obvious example of this but really ALL U.S.-owned software and hardware must be assumed to have been similarly compromised.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing this, but it is the #1 concern for those of us outside the U.S., and there is NOTHING that you can do, now, to address the concern. Send all cards of thanks and appreciation to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander.

(3.) As you point out, one of TrueCrypt's significant advantages was its multi-platform capabilities. These capabilities are starkly absent from most of the commercial products that you advocate (particularly BitLocker), many of which (Bitlocker, Apple FileVault, etc.) are deliberately engineered for marketing reasons, so as to lock a user into a platform-specific "walled garden". For those of us who need static data security in a heterogeneous endpoint environment, this issue is a "show stopper" for the Bitlockers of the world.

The bottom line? Something will replace TrueCrypt. That "something" will be Open Source and will be carefully designed so as to preclude compromise by the United States' pervasive, Orwellian surveillance state. TrueCrypt was a signature achievement in personal data privacy, and the next step will be a step forward, not backward - which is what you are advocating, by pushing Bitlocker.
CAMROBERSON
50%
50%
CAMROBERSON,
User Rank: Author
6/18/2014 | 1:21:20 PM
Re: You're overlooking something...
I grapple with the question of what the NSA is capable of cracking and what it isn't. I suppose the NSA may have cracked TrueCrypt which may have drove its developers to take it down and assert "It's not secure." Who knows? I'm going to assume the NSA has a leg up on their "illegal" hacking brethren but I think most (law abiding) folks are concerned with criminals with financial motivations. With proper authentication and 256 bit encryption (built-in or commercially available) I think my data's safe. If the NSA wants to learn more about me they can do it the old-fashioned way and tap my phone. 
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
6/18/2014 | 4:23:10 PM
Re: You're overlooking something...
@Bulos Qoqish

At a high level, I have to agree with you.  I believe the most successful and useful security tools, whether on the pen-testing side or encryption side, are free and open source software (FOSS) for many of the reasons you note.

Time will tell, but I have high hopes for TrueCrypt.ch to do exactly what you identified, which is keep technology like this moving forward, improve upon it rather than run from it, and use the FOSS community to make it work the way we want, independent of licenses, patents and hidden functions.
gev
100%
0%
gev,
User Rank: Moderator
6/19/2014 | 10:17:28 AM
Re: You're overlooking something...
You point finger at US only because it openly tells you about what is going on.

The lack of information about other developed and otherwise countries doing the same only tells me that they are either not caught yet, or are better able to silense the truth.
anon5472249769
100%
0%
anon5472249769,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/19/2014 | 1:52:50 PM
Re: You're overlooking something...
Sorry, my friend, but you're bluffing with a hand of deuces here. The government of the United States of America is the ONLY country that has engaged in the full gamut of these practices (can you find me ONE... ONE example of someone else soldering backdoor chips on to the motherboards of Cisco routers, for example?), and everyone outside the U.S. knows about it (whether or not you want to acknowledge it).

Over time, we are simply going to stop using U.S.-manufactured software, hardware and services, because we have to assume that it has all been compromised. MIGHT equivalent equipment, if manufactured elsewhere, have been compromised? Possibly (although this is unlikely in most cases, with some exceptions such as Huawei). But thanks to Snowden, we KNOW -- way beyond a reasonable doubt -- that virtually ALL U.S.-manufactured equipment either already has been, or very well might soon be, "backdoored" by the NSA and other U.S. spook agencies.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that, but you don't get to argue about it. This IS the situation and the POV outside your country, and there's NOTHING that you now can do about it. The Humpty Dumpty of implicit foreign trust in the U.S. is broken, and all of Dick Cheney's horses and all of Barack Obama's men, can't put Humpty Dumpty, together, again.

Don't like that? Call Michael Hayden, Keith Alexander and James Clapper. Don't bother taking notes, because a few other people listening on the line, are already doing that for you.
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
6/19/2014 | 8:05:50 PM
Re: You're overlooking something...
This brings a whole new meaning to 'Debugging'. 
anon5131084689
100%
0%
anon5131084689,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/18/2014 | 12:45:22 PM
Heartbleed
What's "The heartbleed virus" again?
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
6/18/2014 | 3:41:46 PM
FalseCrypt
I think there are quite a few code quality issues with TrueCrypt because it utilizes XTS2 as the block cipher mode of operation instead of using HMAC. The bootloader and Windows Kernel Driver also contain depreciated functions among other issues which are clearly visable in the source code. Because of this it lacks protection from certain modification to the volume. It would not surprise me the least bit if the NSA has further developed and exploited these flaws in a similar fashion to the Stoned Bootkit (a form of malware developed to MITM all read/write operations of the encrypted volume without breaking the encryption itself.) This attack works because TrueCrypt does not have the capability to prevent anything from being loaded prior to it's own MBR. I see this as being a similar issue with BitLocker if exploited correctly because it operates basically in the same maner.
gev
100%
0%
gev,
User Rank: Moderator
6/19/2014 | 2:09:29 PM
yes I do
yes I do get to argue about anything - it is my right to free speach.

fact that you can not find anything only tells you that it is not found, not that it does not exist. And this is applicable unversally to everything.

coming from a totalitarian country, I do know what i am talking about, believe me.

 
kalbr88
50%
50%
kalbr88,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/19/2014 | 3:45:20 PM
TrueCrypt's step by step recommendation for Mac as well
http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OtherPlatforms.html

TrueCrypt's site had also posted detailed instructions for Mac.

 
McDaveX
100%
0%
McDaveX,
User Rank: Strategist
6/20/2014 | 12:23:01 PM
Truecrypt still going strong
While its possible the Audit might throw up a spanner, until then there is no major reason to abandon Truecrypt, so I am not seeing the point of this article?
li'l ciso
50%
50%
li'l ciso,
User Rank: Strategist
6/20/2014 | 7:43:21 PM
TC volumes are Plain-Text when they are open...
Why does everyone forget that all encrypted voiumes are PT when they are open?

That goes for BL, PGP, SED's and TC. Encryption only protects you when the volume is closed. The NSA has 1001 exploits to get on your machine when it's running, why would they waste their time trying to crack TC... You just have to wait... then bam... insert surreptitious backdoor, or just read the data at that point... why crack TC/PGP/Bitlocker/Free-otfe at all?

Speaking of Free-OTFE, it was as good if not better than TC. And as far as I can recall, written by one woman, over a number of years, but feature for feature at least on windows, it was great. I can't speak to it's cross-platform-ness, but it was a great program. I don't think Plausible Deniablity was one of her things, but other than that I can't remember any major differences.

Good Day Sir
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
6/21/2014 | 1:15:13 PM
Re: TC volumes are Plain-Text when they are open...
@darkerreading Exactly, And not only that TC, PGP..etc all have plain-text MBR just waiting to be tampered with when the volume is open from the booted OS. Also, the symmetric key is stored in RAM which yes can be extracted.

With Hardware-FDE or SEDs (Self-Encrypting Drives), the symmetric key managment is contained within the hard drive controller itself eliminating memory as a potetntial attack vector. Also unlike software based encryption, the MBR is fully encrypted.

However, not all SEDs are created equal. I have in the past successfully bypassed the firmware based authentication of a drive which resulted in full access to the encrypted volume without the key.

 

 

 

 
CAMROBERSON
50%
50%
CAMROBERSON,
User Rank: Author
6/23/2014 | 9:52:14 AM
Re: TC volumes are Plain-Text when they are open...
You're absolutely right, Darker. There is a real distinction as to why people get encryption. Many look just to check the "compliance" checkbox; to have safeharbor in the event of hardware loss. But is the data truly secure? There are many instances where the data isn't encrypted and then what? Enforcing sound authentication policy? Certainly. How about an ability to remotely reach out to that device and control access. Or kill it altogether? I believe encryption is only a (and not the only) necessary piece of true security."


Overcoming the Challenge of Shorter Certificate Lifespans
Mike Cooper, Founder & CEO of Revocent,  10/15/2020
US Counterintelligence Director & Fmr. Europol Leader Talk Election Security
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/16/2020
7 Tips for Choosing Security Metrics That Matter
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  10/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-26895
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
Prior to 0.10.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) would have accepted a counterparty high-S signature and broadcast tx-relay invalid local commitment/HTLC transactions. This can be exploited by any peer with an open channel regardless of the victim situation (e.g., routing node, payment-receiver,...
CVE-2020-26896
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collis...
CVE-2020-5790
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-20
Cross-site request forgery in Nagios XI 5.7.3 allows a remote attacker to perform sensitive application actions by tricking legitimate users into clicking a crafted link.
CVE-2020-5791
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-20
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command in Nagios XI 5.7.3 allows a remote, authenticated admin user to execute operating system commands with the privileges of the apache user.
CVE-2020-5792
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-20
Improper neutralization of argument delimiters in a command in Nagios XI 5.7.3 allows a remote, authenticated admin user to write to arbitrary files and ultimately execute code with the privileges of the apache user.