Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3345 > unrolled thread

TrueCrypt killed off

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  TrueCrypt killed off Scion <a.b@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-29 13:39 +0000
    Re: TrueCrypt killed off Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-29 14:57 +0100
    Re: TrueCrypt killed off Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2014-05-29 07:14 -0700
    Re: TrueCrypt killed off Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-29 19:53 +0200
      Re: TrueCrypt killed off Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 23:35 +0000
    Re: TrueCrypt killed off "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-30 07:39 -0500
      Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off' "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-30 08:45 -0500
        Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off' Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2014-05-30 10:02 -0700
      Re: TrueCrypt killed off scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-05-30 16:32 +0000
        Re: TrueCrypt killed off "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-30 12:26 -0500
          Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off' "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-30 12:41 -0500

#3345 — TrueCrypt killed off

No further development, and warnings to move to a different encryption 
method.

http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/

No explanation given, though.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3346

On 2014-05-29 14:39, Scion wrote:
> No further development, and warnings to move to a different encryption 
> method.
> 
> http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/
> 
> No explanation given, though.

The Register claims that the latest version for Windows contains malware.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/28/truecrypt_hack/

All very strange.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3348

Scion wrote:
> No further development, and warnings to move to a different encryption
> method.
>
> http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/
>
> No explanation given, though.

For more depth (layers of the onion), read the May 28 Dan Goodin Ars 
Technica article and then the hundreds (currently 349 and rising) of 
comments thereafter. 
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/truecrypt-is-not-secure-official-sourceforge-page-abruptly-warns/ 


For opinions, I believe I prefer the comment by Marlor focused by this 
previewable http://bit.ly/TUZ7dP+

A small number of secretive developers, such as 1 or 2, decided/needed 
to stop developing/supporting that project, which in and of itself made 
it 'insecure' (even if not /this/ instant, potentially so in the next 
second, hour, day, week), so 'he' made the announcement, "I'm done (no 
longer working here defending your data), don't use this anymore.'



-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3351

Scion wrote:

> No further development, and warnings to move to a different encryption 
> method.
>
> http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/

That page currently contains instructions on "Migrating from TrueCrypt
to BitLocker"

What they fail to point out is that for Vista and Windows 7, Bitlocker
was only available with the Enterprise and Ultimate editions.

Bitlocker is available with Windows 8 Pro and Enterprise.
Bitlocker was not available for XP.

source:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitLocker_Drive_Encryption#Availability>

Although Windows 7 Ultimate was only a bump of 15-20 USD on top of the
price of the Pro edition, I suspect that the Pro edition far outsold the
Ultimate edition. Put simply, lots of folks won't have Bitlocker
capability.


> No explanation given, though.

All very strange.

-- 
If you make it well enough, you give it immortality.” -- Ernest Hemingway

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3600

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> Scion wrote:
> 
>> No further development, and warnings to move to a different encryption 
>> method.
>> 
>> http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/
> 
> That page currently contains instructions on "Migrating from TrueCrypt
> to BitLocker"
> 
> What they fail to point out is that for Vista and Windows 7, Bitlocker
> was only available with the Enterprise and Ultimate editions.
> 
> Bitlocker is available with Windows 8 Pro and Enterprise.
> Bitlocker was not available for XP.
> 
> source:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitLocker_Drive_Encryption#Availability>
> 
> Although Windows 7 Ultimate was only a bump of 15-20 USD on top of the
> price of the Pro edition, I suspect that the Pro edition far outsold the
> Ultimate edition. Put simply, lots of folks won't have Bitlocker
> capability.
> 
> 
>> No explanation given, though.
> 
> All very strange.

BitLocker is inherently insecure, but then again all computers with
relatively current Intel CPUs have hardware backdoors anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3401

Sad news, I've followed TrueCrypt since it was E4M, although I prefer  
FreeOTFE on windows and the built in system on Linux.

reddit [1]has some paranoid speculation that the devs received a NSL to put  
in a back door (or not remove one) and this is their only way out without  
betraying their users.

However Matthew Green, one of the code auditors, has tweeted [2]that he has  
heard from one of the devs 'David'

>�
>
>[killed because] There is no longer interest
>
>...
>
>He said Bitlocker is "good enough" and Windows was original "goal of the  
>project".
>
>...
>
>[David] "personally" feels that [a] fork is harmful. "The source is still  
>available as a reference though"
>
>..
>
>I asked and it was clear from the reply that "he" believes that [a fork] is  
>harmful because only they are really familiar w/code.
>
>..
>
>"I were happy with the audit, it didn't spark anything. We worked hard on  
>this for 10 years, nothing lasts forever."
�

Bear in mind the current maintainers of the code are not the original author  
(Paul Le Roux), and both windows device drivers and security software are  
hard to write.

So it looks like, as others have said, the devs just didn't feel up to  
porting it to later versions of Windows.

There are also comments by Bruce Schneier [3], and a summary of events here  
[4].


[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/26pz9b/truecrypt_development_has_ended_052814/
[2] https://twitter.com/stevebarnhart/status/472200478345150464
[3] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/truecrypt_wtf.html
[4] http://www.etcwiki.org/wiki/What_happened_to_Truecrypt_-_May_2014
-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6218#comment-27920

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3405 — Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off'

Meanwhile a project to fork TrueCrypt has already started  
http://truecrypt.ch/

-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6218#comment-27951

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3418 — Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off'

tdk wrote:
> Meanwhile a project to fork TrueCrypt has already started
> http://truecrypt.ch/

Up-to-date insight and report from Steve Gibson 
https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm  Last Edit: May 30, 
2014 at 08:31

Discussions ongoing of course in Gibson's grc.security.software



-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3416

In article <6218#27920@usenet.squte.com>, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:
>Sad news, I've followed TrueCrypt since it was E4M, although I prefer  
>FreeOTFE on windows and the built in system on Linux.

Will FreeOTFE even run on 64-bit Windows?  I tried installing it the other
day, and it failed with a bunch of unsigned drivers.  For now, I'm using
SystemRescueCD in VirtualBox to access a LUKS encrypted filesystem on
Windows.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3420

>Will FreeOTFE even run on 64-bit Windows?
yes, I use it on 64 bit Windows 7.

 From the help file:

=========================================================================================

In order to protect its revenue streams generated by DRM protected content,  
Microsoft saw fit to require all drivers running under the 64 bit (x64)  
version of Windows Vista and Windows 7 be digitally signed by Microsoft's  
root certificate.

Understandably, this presents a /major problem/ for the overwhelming majority  
of free software projects which make use of kernel mode drivers which, for  
obvious reasons, don't such a have a digital certificate (read: /haven't paid  
Microsoft, or one of their resellers, for such a certificate/) to sign their  
drivers with.

For the same reason, FreeOTFE's drivers are not currently signed with a  
Microsoft certificate.

Fortunately, there are a number of methods of loading unsigned drivers under  
Windows Vista x64/Windows 7 x64, /without/ having to /pay/ for a digital  
certificate, and these are summarised below.

*As a consequence, it /is/ possible to use FreeOTFE under Vista x64/Windows 7  
x64 by using the methods shown as be successful below*

A more long term solution (Microsoft signing) is being investigated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... Summary of Different Methods

Below is a table summarising the different methods of configuring Windows  
Vista x64/Windows 7 x64 to allow it to run FreeOTFE.

For most users, Method 3: TESTSIGNING ON [1] is recommended

MethodResults"Test Mode"
on wallpaperJunk messages
shown on manual startRecommended?1. NOINTEGRITYCHECKS ON  
[2]IneffectiveNoYesNo2. DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS [3]May workNoYes�3.  
TESTSIGNING ON [4]WorksYesNo*Yes*4. <F8> while booting [5]WorksNoYes�5.  
ReadyDriver Plus [6]WorksNoYes�6. EasyBCD [7]May workNoYesNo7. Signing with  
a Microsoft certificate [8]WorksNoNo�
.. "Test Mode" on wallpaper

The method with "Yes" marked in this column indicates that the words "Test  
Mode" will be shown in each of the four corners of the desktop wallpaper.  
This is largely a cosmetic issue, and can be resolved using the directions  
indicated in the description of this method.

.. Junk messages shown on manual start

Those methods with "Yes" marked in this column indicate that MS Windows will  
pop up a message stating: "Windows requires a digitally signed driver" for  
each and every driver loaded - even though the drivers /are/ digitally signed  
(albeit using self-certification).

If the drivers are started automatically on booting, these messages will  
/not/ appear.

However, if the FreeOTFE drivers are started from the GUI (e.g. by starting  
portable mode). Since FreeOTFE's flexible architecture employs multiple  
drivers, this is hardly ideal as the user gets peppered with junk messages  
telling them what they're doing - as if they didn't already know!

The number of these messages shown can be minimised by removing all unused  
hash and cypher drivers.

[snip]

.... Method 3: TESTSIGNING ON

Instructions:

 1) Open an elevated command prompt by /either/:
     * Clicking the "Start" button on the Windows taskbar, type CMD in the
       /search box/, and then press <CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER> to run CMD with
       administrator privileges), /or/
     * Locating "cmd.exe" under C:\Windows\System32 in Windows Explorer,
       rightclicking on this executable and selecting "Run as Administrator"
       from the context menu
    
 2) Click "continue" or enter the administrator's password as appropriate and
    click "OK", when asked for permission to continue.
 3) In the command prompt window which appears, type:
    >bcdedit.exe /set TESTSIGNING ON
 4) Reboot the PC

/This method is probably the best solution,/ and allows FreeOTFE to run  
correctly. However, it does have a trivial side effect: The words "Test Mode"  
are shown in the four corners of the Desktop wallpaper after rebooting.

Although only a cosmetic issue, the words "Test Mode" may be removed from  
your background by using one the following methods:

 * Remove and Erase Desktop "Evaluation Copy", "Test Mode" or "Safe Mode"
   Watermark in 64-bit (x64) Vista [9]
 * Get Rid Of and Remove Evaluation Copy Watermark in Vista After
   Installating SP1 [10]
 * Remove and Disable Windows Vista Evaluation Watermark from Desktop [11]

=========================================================================================

I found this method "TESTSIGNING ON" woked for me. Portable mode also doesn't  
work well in Windows 7.


[1] #Method_3
[2] #Method_1
[3] #Method_2
[4] #Method_3
[5] #Method_4
[6] #Method_5
[7] #Method_6
[8] #Method_7
[9] http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/01/09/remove-and-erase-desktop-evaluation-copy-test-mode-or-safe-mode-watermark-in-64-bit-x64-vista/
[10] http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/11/03/get-rid-of-and-remove-evaluation-copy-watermark-in-vista-after-installating-sp1/
[11] http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/11/23/remove-and-disable-windows-vista-evaluation-watermark-from-desktop/
-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6218#comment-28004

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3421 — Re: 'Re: TrueCrypt killed off'

> From the help file
I apologise for the formatiing of the post.

The links are also all broken. To remove the watermark use this [1]


[1] https://support.microsoft.com/kb/2509241
-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6218#comment-28005

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web