Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TrueCrypt Has Been Potentially Compromised

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • araxth
    replied
    Originally posted by stikonas View Post
    GPG is good but it is not convenient as a replacement for truecrypt. GPG is actually much better suited for signing/encrypting emails which you should do as well.

    LUKS (and cryptsetup in the userspace) is a much better and safer (full-disk encryption is always a safer option).
    Note that new versions of cryptsetup support opening truecrypt format volumes which might help you migrate.
    Agree, i ain't seen so far many user friendly (aka GUI etc) GPG / PGP power-ed tools for linux to encrypt full disks. However I am quite pleased with the integration in such desktop environments as KDE etc. As you said, the emails too. Still needs to be digged it, the fun with FOSS is the fact that somewhere someone might have done it already .

    I wasnt a big fan of TCrypt as well since i always counted PGP a better choice for the next door Joe and Jane trying to provide a bit of security to his / her files.

    Good luck,
    n

    Leave a comment:


  • stikonas
    replied
    Originally posted by araxth View Post
    GPG. It was the best choice anyway
    GPG is good but it is not convenient as a replacement for truecrypt. GPG is actually much better suited for signing/encrypting emails which you should do as well.

    LUKS (and cryptsetup in the userspace) is a much better and safer (full-disk encryption is always a safer option).
    Note that new versions of cryptsetup support opening truecrypt format volumes which might help you migrate.

    Leave a comment:


  • araxth
    replied
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    So, if that turns out to be legitimate, what other alternatives do we have on Linux that works in a similar way? I need a tool that creates an encrypted file-based virtual drive as I am using it to encrypt USB thumbdrives that I may access on more than one machine.
    GPG. It was the best choice anyway

    Leave a comment:


  • opensource
    replied
    Their web-site, hosted on SourceForge, also encourages users to switch over to Microsoft's BitLocker encryption software as an alternative.
    I cannot image them being so naive and recommending a closed source software which besides being a no-go because of closed source alone, obviously very probably has backdoors because it's from M$. Maybe their acc has been hijacked, maybe they are trying to tell us something, we'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyber Killer
    replied
    I checked the gpg signature of the 7.2 file using their older key from last year - the signature is correct :-/

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by nslay View Post
    Well, gee, how coincidental ... Just recently Sourceforge requested a mass password reset.
    Ignore that. SourceForge already commented on that.

    Originally posted by https://sourceforge.net/blog/forced-password-change/;
    On 2014-05-22, we triggered a forced password change for SourceForge users.

    *) We have adopted a longer minimum password length standard.
    *) There has been a change in our authentication layer, moving to a more modern Open Source platform.
    *) Password hashing algorithm and key length has changed.
    *) Forced password reset has occurred sitewide to ensure all stored password hashes meet these stronger standards.
    *) All site users have been sent email asking for password change.
    *) There has been no known breach or compromise of our systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • nslay
    replied
    Well, gee, how coincidental ... Just recently Sourceforge requested a mass password reset.

    Subject: SourceForge.net Password Reset Required

    SourceForge.net Team <[email protected]>

    May 21 (7 days ago)

    Greetings,

    To make sure we're following current best practices for security, we've
    made some changes to how we're storing user passwords. As a result, the
    next time you go to login to your SourceForge.net account, you will be
    prompted to change your password. Once this is done, your password will be
    stored more securely. We recommend that you do this at your earliest
    convenience by visiting the SourceForge website and logging in.

    And, as always, be vigilant about password security. Use a secure password,
    never include your password in an email, and don't click on links for
    unsolicited password resets.

    If you have any concerns about this, please contact SourceForge support at
    [email protected]

    Best regards,
    SourceForge Team

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    SourceForge.net has made this mailing to you as a registered user of
    the SourceForge.net site to convey important information regarding
    your SourceForge.net account or your use of SourceForge.net services.

    We make a small number of directed mailings to registered users each
    year regarding their account or data, to help preserve the security of
    their account or prevent loss of data or service access.

    If you have concerns about this mailing please contact our Support
    team per: http://sourceforge.net/support

    Leave a comment:


  • septianix
    replied
    Ok, I may be a little paranoid here but doesn't that remind you of when Lavabit shut down its operations?

    The reason they give for shutting down does sound bogus and maybe it's because they can't tell us the real reason. Let's say a secret court order that can't be legally talked about.
    Maybe the current software is not compromised (they don't give any details whatsoever) but any future version would have been.

    So instead of starting to provide back doors for one the agencies they just push the auto-destruct button.

    Leave a comment:


  • rice_nine
    replied
    Looks like BJAODN. Did they decide to end development because the audit showed it was going to be ridiculously hard to fix? Then they might have said so. There's no "code" link to browse svn, etc. (but I don't know if it was ever there, and some projects don't enable that anyway e.g. pm4linux, PaleMoon source is elsewhere) and every other download has been removed. The "latest" links don't work and in the usual place, SF says "Looking for the latest version? Download Downloads"

    I can't find a place to download source code. This is exceedingly suspicious. So "audit" 7.2, right? Downloaded for the lulz. oldversion.com has 7.1, but how am I going to know it's original... maybe my TC-loving friend has a recent one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Bitlocker is guaranteed untrusted, rthe Truecrypt report may nor may not be true

    Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Hopefully we'll see a statement from TrueCrypt developers attesting to whether this is true or a dangerous hoax. Right now we don't need lies, hacks and bs to undermine the trust people place in such encryption software.

    So lets not get our panties in a bunch till we get clarification on this.

    This...we need to get at the truth
    I cannot vouch for the Truecrypt site, but certainly nobody should use binaries from a webpage suspected of being hacked until this is sorted out. In the meantime, any transition to Bitlocker would expose users to known Microsoft-provided tools to do things like easily fish keys out of RAM without rebooting if a Bitlocker encrypted machine is captured running. Also assume Bitlocker uses NSA algorithms to weaken random number generation and limit keyspace. That way the NSA can brute force the remaining keyspace without anyone else being able to do so and prove Bitlocker was compromised.

    The only way MS could ever prove Bitlocker not to be compromised would be to open the code and subject it to a security audit like the Truecrypt audit. ANY and ALL closed-source encryption programs should be presumed compromised by the security forces of their countries of origin, as the deterrent of finding drop-in "bugs" discovered is largely removed. Microsoft in particular has a record of cooperation with the NSA, with the FBI, and even with police departments. If the Truecrypt website was hacked, Microsoft, the NSA, or their supporters are the suspects.

    Even if the Truecrypt website was hacked and is proven to have been, that will cause people to distrust Truecrypt, fearing the retraction to be the hoax. That's how FUD works. Anyone switching to Bitlocker is doing exactly what the NSA wants! The only fix if Truecrypt really was compromised is of course to dump Windows and use Linux with our open-source encryption like dm-crypt/luks. This also solved the problem that even if Truecrypt is secure, Windows itself is not and things like getting the disk keys out of ram and exporting them online could be enabled by Windows kernel changes aimed at compromising Truecrypt by finding and exporting the keys. If you can't trust the kernel, you can't trust your crypto while connected to a network or to any unencrypted write-capable block device no matter how small.

    Therefore, even if this whole thing is FUD and bullshit by a hacked website, my advice is not to open Truecrypt volumes on Windows, nor to open any other encrypted volumes on Windows regardless of cipher or implementation. At least don't do so when the NSA or FBI are potential adversaries.

    Lastly, if the website turns out to have been hacked, the modified version of Truecrypt then becomes presumed malicious. The payload must be assumed in such a case to include both keyloggers and disk key export, requiring the replacement of any volumes ever opened with it with new volumes used with new passphrases from a known good version. Speaking of such hacks, if your package management system ever complains of an unsigned encryption package you did not write yourself, DO NOT INSTALL IT!
    Last edited by Luke; 05-28-2014, 10:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X