9 ms·

Relaunched TrueCrypt site with original content and documentation

71 points by unr3al011 11y ago

zz1 11y ago
No link or mention of the audit? I guess it would be very useful!
luck87 11y ago
It is available the version 7.1a, but the TrueCrypt development has stopped (for now). An alternative solution is VeraCrypt (build over Truecrypt 7.1a): https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ VeraCrypt says to add extra security features (ex. TrueCrypt uses PBKDF2-RIPEMD160 with 1000 iterations whereas in VeraCrypt we use 327661): https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostContent_1313325 https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostConten... Do you think VeraCrypt is an valid alternative? or have they only fix something in TrueCrypt ( like change the CONSTANT value of iterations )
- dtech 11y ago
  They're your most realistic option right now. They are actively developing it and added things like newer algorithms (e.g. SHA2). There's CipherSched but that is basically a completely new program/rewrite which is very far from done. However, I don't agree with VeraCrypts choices. They've changed several things that make mounting slow (0,5s -> 10s), which is annoying, especially if you mistype the password. Providing the option for increased security isn't bad, but they refuse to give users overrides to disable those slow security options because they are of the opinion that users can't assess the tradeoff for themselves. Which leads people to just go back to truecrypt because it works way better in their minds.
  - m82labs 11y ago
    This is an odd conclusion to come to. Are there a lot of users of True/Veracrypt that don't understand this? I guess I just don't see my grandparents using either of these packages, and I can't imagine a lot of "normal" users "trying out" a new encryption program.
    - tired_man 11y ago
      Just because a person is older than you doesn't mean they're either stupid or completely non-technical. Plenty of older people started using computer in the middle of the sixties. So what if we started with card punch machines, tape readers, and mainframes? Just exactly what do you mean by "normal?" How much computer exposure does it take before one loses that quality and becomes, well, "you?" There are lots of grandparents coding away in cubes across the world or tinkering with their prized home-brew desktop rig. Take a reality pill, kiddo. If anything, there are fewer younger people who will tinker with crypto because the vast majority of them think they're invincible, indestructible, and immortal, when they're really just inexperienced and gullible.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        I understand that there's a prejudice against older people regarding technical ability, but the parent poster didn't actually say anything regarding old people in general, just about his/her grandparents specifically.
        tired_man 11y ago
        Grandparents _are_ the prototypical older generation. Read areound. That's become the common usage ;-)
        icebraining 11y ago
        So how are we supposed to refer to our actual grandparents, without people assuming we're making a generalization?
    - kijin 11y ago
      10 seconds is ridiculous, especially if you know what you're doing and use strong passphrases. The passphrase to one of my TrueCrypt volumes is around 30 characters long. It's not completely random, so let's say it only has 2 bits of entropy per character. That's 60 bits total. A brute-force attack would take an average of 2^59 guesses before it succeeds. At 10 seconds per guess, we're looking at approximately 180 billion years to crack my passphrase. Even if you devoted a million computers to the job (as an extremely well-funded adversary might do), it would still take 180,000 years. If you weakened the PBKDF to take 1 second instead, it would take 18,000 years to crack my relatively weak passphrase using a million computers. That's still long enough that I don't care at all. Moreover, if I were really paranoid, I can easily bring it back to the 180,000-year mark (or more) by adding a few more characters to my passphrase, which would only take another second to type. So why wait 10 seconds?
  - mhogomchungu 11y ago
    > They're your most realistic option right now. zuluCrypt[1] is another option if you are on linux. Its GPL licensed and exists in a lot of distribution's repositories(Will appear in debian and ubuntu repositories shortly) It supports TrueCrypt volumes,VeraCrypt volumes and LUKS volumes. [1] http://mhogomchungu.github.io/zuluCrypt/ http://mhogomchungu.github.io/zuluCrypt/
    - vog 11y ago
      Under Linux, what is the advantage of TrueCrypt/zuluCrypt over plain old LUKS? (which is automatically set up on any modern Linux Distro installation)
      - Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
        There is no advantage. Choosing TrueCraft is a choice to use software with more questionable origins.
      - bitL 11y ago
        Plausible deniability? With LUKS everyone can see your volume is encrypted; to avoid that you'd have to use plain dm-crypt/cryptsetup, randomize your drives (time consuming) and manage keys yourself (too much work).
        fluidcruft 11y ago
        Anyone can be pretty sure that your drive is encrypted rather than full of entropy, anyway.
        bitL 11y ago
        Imagine somebody decided to use $5 wrench method on you right after you randomized your RAID ;-)
      - mhogomchungu 11y ago
        LUKS is an on-disk format where as TrueCrypt is both an on-disk format and an application.zuluCrypt is only an application that supports multiple on-disk formats so your question is not easy to answer since it mixes up different things. LUKS advantages over TrueCrypt is that it can support up to 8 different passwords and each password security can be fine tuned by a changeable pbkdf2 iteration count that is set per password. TrueCrypt on-disk format advantages over LUKS is that it can support two volumes(outer one and hidden one) and its header is completely hidden since its encrypted.LUKS volume header is unencrypted and hence visible. With a LUKS based encrypted volume,its possible to mimic a hidden header on a device through the usage of a "detached header" but this is a property of tools that manage LUKS volumes and not of a LUKS volume on disk-format.It is also possible to mimic a hidden volume through a plain dm-crypt volume at a non zero offset but this is also a property of a tool that manages LUKS volume and not of a LUKS volume format. When it comes to binary applications,zuluCrypt is better than TrueCrypt because it supports TrueCrypt on-disk format together with other formats and it also supports multiple hidden volumes through the use of plain dm-crypt volumes. zuluCrypt also supports LUKS volumes with a detached header and this is more or less like TrueCrypt volume that requires a password and a keyfile(the detached header will act as a keyfile in this case). zuluCrypt also supports plain dm-crypt volumes at a none zero offset and this means it can have more than one "hidden volumes" although it does not offer protection of these hidden volumes.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Why would someone want to use Veracrypt but not have the increased security? Why not just use Truecrypt?
    - wnevets 11y ago
      because people like actively development software. Sublime text is a good example of this.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        What new features is veracrypt adding that aren't security related?
        wnevets 11y ago
        I have no idea. People aren't always rational when it comes to their wants.
- ilurk 11y ago
  > Disclaimer: this site is not affiliated with, nor is it the official site of TrueCrypt AFAIK there are several forks out there. But who is behind them? Can they be trusted? BTW, for those looking for the code, this is the only reliable host for the Truecrypt source code: https://github.com/AuditProject/truecrypt-verified-mirror https://github.com/AuditProject/truecrypt-verified-mirror
  - tokenizerrr 11y ago
    We don't even know who was behind TrueCrypt itself. How could that be trusted? Because it was open source and people could and have reviewed the code.
metaos 11y ago
good work :)
v4n4d1s 11y ago
Why not https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/?
jordigh 11y ago
"Free open source"? Did they actually get an open source license this time? If not, this website could be in violation of the license, but as discussed before, it's very unlikely the TrueCrypt authors would pursue this copyright violation.
- unr3al011 11y ago
  thats the original caption from their old website.
ralala 11y ago
What do you think about https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page
Paul_S 11y ago
Why can't the original devs just leak the reason behind all this? I don't expect it on their official website but honestly, how difficult is it to just let people know?
- brillenfux 11y ago
  And what? Eat bad food with a bad view for the rest of your life?
- fiveoak 11y ago
  Probably because they can't legally disclose the reason.
nickysielicki 11y ago
If I was concerned about my data, I wouldn't touch TrueCrypt with a 10 foot pole. More specifically I wouldn't touch Windows. Developers don't abruptly shut down projects. If there are problems with the code, they release statements and patches. If they lose interest in the project, they call it orphaned and ask for maintainers. If it's a mix of the two, they at least say so. But what happened with TrueCrypt was truly bizarre. No warning. No phase-out. Telling people to move to BitLocker? I think there's only one way to interpret that. They did something bizarre because it was all the noise they could make without telling us what really happened. AKA some of their developers got served gag orders. But what on earth could a TrueCrypt dev be gagged for? A gag order implies that some three-letter-agency had enough foresight to know they were planning to disclose something. If it was that there was a government backdoor in TrueCrypt itself, how would NSA/FBI know that they discovered it? How would they know that it could be tied back to them? Why didn't the audit [1] catch it? Gag orders are pretty loose in terms of legality in the first place, but even still, would a gag order prevent them from releasing a statement about a security hole (without mentioning its origin) and releasing patches? It's a total guess, but my theory is that TrueCrypt discovered something outside their codebase (EG: Windows itself) that was undermining encryption. They reached out to Microsoft, who contacted FBI/NSA, and they were served their gag orders. This is the only theory I can think of that makes a gag order possible, in other situations the FBI/NSA wouldn't have been able to know about a disclosure before it happened. [1]: istruecryptauditedyet.com
- jaawn 11y ago
  If they discovered an issue in Windows, and it led to gag orders, why would they tell people to move to BitLocker (a Microsoft product)?
  - nickysielicki 11y ago
    This is obviously all conjecture, but my argument is that they made their actions as bizarre as possible because it's the only way to get out a distress call. They abruptly push a release that removes all the core functionality. They abruptly say that there will be no future releases. They wanted everyone to plainly see that this isn't them just giving up on the project because they've lost interest. Suggesting people use Bitlocker is completely against everything they stand for. Here are some quotes off the FAQ on OP's rehosted website: > > Will TrueCrypt be open-source and free forever? > Yes, it will. We will never create a commercial version of TrueCrypt, as we believe in open-source and free security software. > > Why is TrueCrypt open-source? What are the advantages? > As the source code for TrueCrypt is publicly available, independent researchers can verify that the source code does not contain any security flaw or secret ‘backdoor’. If the source code were not available, reviewers would need to reverse-engineer the executable files. However, analyzing and understanding such reverse-engineered code is so difficult that it is practically impossible to do (especially when the code is as large as the TrueCrypt code). > Remark: A similar problem also affects cryptographic hardware (for example, a self-encrypting storage device). It is very difficult to reverse-engineer it to verify that it does not contain any security flaw or secret ‘backdoor’. These same people who condemned closed-source crypto in their FAQ are now suggesting using a closed-source encryption suite? It is completely absurd, and that's the point.
piq 11y ago
Who are we? Why do you need cookies to deliver your service? I rather trust steve gibsons website https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm
- luck87 11y ago
  Yes, I agree that this is the truth. This sort of mystery about the end of truecrypt was unfounded.

71 points by unr3al011 11y ago

zz1 11y ago

No link or mention of the audit? I guess it would be very useful!

It is available the version 7.1a, but the TrueCrypt development has stopped (for now). An alternative solution is VeraCrypt (build over Truecrypt 7.1a): https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ VeraCrypt says to add extra security features (ex. TrueCrypt uses PBKDF2-RIPEMD160 with 1000 iterations whereas in VeraCrypt we use 327661): https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostContent_1313325 https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/569777#PostConten... Do you think VeraCrypt is an valid alternative? or have they only fix something in TrueCrypt ( like change the CONSTANT value of iterations )

dtech 11y ago
They're your most realistic option right now. They are actively developing it and added things like newer algorithms (e.g. SHA2). There's CipherSched but that is basically a completely new program/rewrite which is very far from done. However, I don't agree with VeraCrypts choices. They've changed several things that make mounting slow (0,5s -> 10s), which is annoying, especially if you mistype the password. Providing the option for increased security isn't bad, but they refuse to give users overrides to disable those slow security options because they are of the opinion that users can't assess the tradeoff for themselves. Which leads people to just go back to truecrypt because it works way better in their minds.
- m82labs 11y ago
  This is an odd conclusion to come to. Are there a lot of users of True/Veracrypt that don't understand this? I guess I just don't see my grandparents using either of these packages, and I can't imagine a lot of "normal" users "trying out" a new encryption program.
  - tired_man 11y ago
    Just because a person is older than you doesn't mean they're either stupid or completely non-technical. Plenty of older people started using computer in the middle of the sixties. So what if we started with card punch machines, tape readers, and mainframes? Just exactly what do you mean by "normal?" How much computer exposure does it take before one loses that quality and becomes, well, "you?" There are lots of grandparents coding away in cubes across the world or tinkering with their prized home-brew desktop rig. Take a reality pill, kiddo. If anything, there are fewer younger people who will tinker with crypto because the vast majority of them think they're invincible, indestructible, and immortal, when they're really just inexperienced and gullible.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I understand that there's a prejudice against older people regarding technical ability, but the parent poster didn't actually say anything regarding old people in general, just about his/her grandparents specifically.
      - tired_man 11y ago
        Grandparents _are_ the prototypical older generation. Read areound. That's become the common usage ;-)
        icebraining 11y ago
        So how are we supposed to refer to our actual grandparents, without people assuming we're making a generalization?
  - kijin 11y ago
    10 seconds is ridiculous, especially if you know what you're doing and use strong passphrases. The passphrase to one of my TrueCrypt volumes is around 30 characters long. It's not completely random, so let's say it only has 2 bits of entropy per character. That's 60 bits total. A brute-force attack would take an average of 2^59 guesses before it succeeds. At 10 seconds per guess, we're looking at approximately 180 billion years to crack my passphrase. Even if you devoted a million computers to the job (as an extremely well-funded adversary might do), it would still take 180,000 years. If you weakened the PBKDF to take 1 second instead, it would take 18,000 years to crack my relatively weak passphrase using a million computers. That's still long enough that I don't care at all. Moreover, if I were really paranoid, I can easily bring it back to the 180,000-year mark (or more) by adding a few more characters to my passphrase, which would only take another second to type. So why wait 10 seconds?
- mhogomchungu 11y ago
  > They're your most realistic option right now. zuluCrypt[1] is another option if you are on linux. Its GPL licensed and exists in a lot of distribution's repositories(Will appear in debian and ubuntu repositories shortly) It supports TrueCrypt volumes,VeraCrypt volumes and LUKS volumes. [1] http://mhogomchungu.github.io/zuluCrypt/ http://mhogomchungu.github.io/zuluCrypt/
  - vog 11y ago
    Under Linux, what is the advantage of TrueCrypt/zuluCrypt over plain old LUKS? (which is automatically set up on any modern Linux Distro installation)
    - Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
      There is no advantage. Choosing TrueCraft is a choice to use software with more questionable origins.
    - bitL 11y ago
      Plausible deniability? With LUKS everyone can see your volume is encrypted; to avoid that you'd have to use plain dm-crypt/cryptsetup, randomize your drives (time consuming) and manage keys yourself (too much work).
      - fluidcruft 11y ago
        Anyone can be pretty sure that your drive is encrypted rather than full of entropy, anyway.
        bitL 11y ago
        Imagine somebody decided to use $5 wrench method on you right after you randomized your RAID ;-)
    - mhogomchungu 11y ago
      LUKS is an on-disk format where as TrueCrypt is both an on-disk format and an application.zuluCrypt is only an application that supports multiple on-disk formats so your question is not easy to answer since it mixes up different things. LUKS advantages over TrueCrypt is that it can support up to 8 different passwords and each password security can be fine tuned by a changeable pbkdf2 iteration count that is set per password. TrueCrypt on-disk format advantages over LUKS is that it can support two volumes(outer one and hidden one) and its header is completely hidden since its encrypted.LUKS volume header is unencrypted and hence visible. With a LUKS based encrypted volume,its possible to mimic a hidden header on a device through the usage of a "detached header" but this is a property of tools that manage LUKS volumes and not of a LUKS volume on disk-format.It is also possible to mimic a hidden volume through a plain dm-crypt volume at a non zero offset but this is also a property of a tool that manages LUKS volume and not of a LUKS volume format. When it comes to binary applications,zuluCrypt is better than TrueCrypt because it supports TrueCrypt on-disk format together with other formats and it also supports multiple hidden volumes through the use of plain dm-crypt volumes. zuluCrypt also supports LUKS volumes with a detached header and this is more or less like TrueCrypt volume that requires a password and a keyfile(the detached header will act as a keyfile in this case). zuluCrypt also supports plain dm-crypt volumes at a none zero offset and this means it can have more than one "hidden volumes" although it does not offer protection of these hidden volumes.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Why would someone want to use Veracrypt but not have the increased security? Why not just use Truecrypt?
  - wnevets 11y ago
    because people like actively development software. Sublime text is a good example of this.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      What new features is veracrypt adding that aren't security related?
      - wnevets 11y ago
        I have no idea. People aren't always rational when it comes to their wants.
ilurk 11y ago
> Disclaimer: this site is not affiliated with, nor is it the official site of TrueCrypt AFAIK there are several forks out there. But who is behind them? Can they be trusted? BTW, for those looking for the code, this is the only reliable host for the Truecrypt source code: https://github.com/AuditProject/truecrypt-verified-mirror https://github.com/AuditProject/truecrypt-verified-mirror
- tokenizerrr 11y ago
  We don't even know who was behind TrueCrypt itself. How could that be trusted? Because it was open source and people could and have reviewed the code.

metaos 11y ago

good work :)

v4n4d1s 11y ago

Why not https://truecrypt.ch/ https://truecrypt.ch/?

jordigh 11y ago

"Free open source"? Did they actually get an open source license this time? If not, this website could be in violation of the license, but as discussed before, it's very unlikely the TrueCrypt authors would pursue this copyright violation.

unr3al011 11y ago
thats the original caption from their old website.

ralala 11y ago

What do you think about https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page https://diskcryptor.net/wiki/Main_Page

Paul_S 11y ago

Why can't the original devs just leak the reason behind all this? I don't expect it on their official website but honestly, how difficult is it to just let people know?

brillenfux 11y ago
And what? Eat bad food with a bad view for the rest of your life?
fiveoak 11y ago
Probably because they can't legally disclose the reason.

nickysielicki 11y ago

If I was concerned about my data, I wouldn't touch TrueCrypt with a 10 foot pole. More specifically I wouldn't touch Windows. Developers don't abruptly shut down projects. If there are problems with the code, they release statements and patches. If they lose interest in the project, they call it orphaned and ask for maintainers. If it's a mix of the two, they at least say so. But what happened with TrueCrypt was truly bizarre. No warning. No phase-out. Telling people to move to BitLocker? I think there's only one way to interpret that. They did something bizarre because it was all the noise they could make without telling us what really happened. AKA some of their developers got served gag orders. But what on earth could a TrueCrypt dev be gagged for? A gag order implies that some three-letter-agency had enough foresight to know they were planning to disclose something. If it was that there was a government backdoor in TrueCrypt itself, how would NSA/FBI know that they discovered it? How would they know that it could be tied back to them? Why didn't the audit [1] catch it? Gag orders are pretty loose in terms of legality in the first place, but even still, would a gag order prevent them from releasing a statement about a security hole (without mentioning its origin) and releasing patches? It's a total guess, but my theory is that TrueCrypt discovered something outside their codebase (EG: Windows itself) that was undermining encryption. They reached out to Microsoft, who contacted FBI/NSA, and they were served their gag orders. This is the only theory I can think of that makes a gag order possible, in other situations the FBI/NSA wouldn't have been able to know about a disclosure before it happened. [1]: istruecryptauditedyet.com

jaawn 11y ago
If they discovered an issue in Windows, and it led to gag orders, why would they tell people to move to BitLocker (a Microsoft product)?
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  This is obviously all conjecture, but my argument is that they made their actions as bizarre as possible because it's the only way to get out a distress call. They abruptly push a release that removes all the core functionality. They abruptly say that there will be no future releases. They wanted everyone to plainly see that this isn't them just giving up on the project because they've lost interest. Suggesting people use Bitlocker is completely against everything they stand for. Here are some quotes off the FAQ on OP's rehosted website: > > Will TrueCrypt be open-source and free forever? > Yes, it will. We will never create a commercial version of TrueCrypt, as we believe in open-source and free security software. > > Why is TrueCrypt open-source? What are the advantages? > As the source code for TrueCrypt is publicly available, independent researchers can verify that the source code does not contain any security flaw or secret ‘backdoor’. If the source code were not available, reviewers would need to reverse-engineer the executable files. However, analyzing and understanding such reverse-engineered code is so difficult that it is practically impossible to do (especially when the code is as large as the TrueCrypt code). > Remark: A similar problem also affects cryptographic hardware (for example, a self-encrypting storage device). It is very difficult to reverse-engineer it to verify that it does not contain any security flaw or secret ‘backdoor’. These same people who condemned closed-source crypto in their FAQ are now suggesting using a closed-source encryption suite? It is completely absurd, and that's the point.

piq 11y ago

Who are we? Why do you need cookies to deliver your service? I rather trust steve gibsons website https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm

luck87 11y ago
Yes, I agree that this is the truth. This sort of mystery about the end of truecrypt was unfounded.