3 ms·

that sounds like a really good idea and not that difficult to implement.

gambiting 8y ago
Truecrypt always had that - one password decrypts into your real partition, the other decrypts the prepared one, with a clear OS. It's impossible to say there is anything in the space where the hidden partition resides, and you have provided a password so at least in theory you are clear.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  But it is possible to say that you have Truecrypt installed. Then the LEO just asks for the second password.
  - lol768 8y ago
    > Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      They're not dumb. You installed the thing you're claiming gives you plausible deniability -- it's a fair inference that you wanted just that so that you could hide something, ergo the court will just demand that password. Which means you shouldn't install any such software unless you're going to have those hidden partitions and are willing to let LE have access.
      - cesarb 8y ago
        Do most users of TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt use this "hidden volume" functionality, or do they just want the basic full disk encryption? It wouldn't surprise me if users of plausible deniability were in the minority.
        cryptonector 8y ago
        If you could show that most users never do this, you might have an argument in court. How would you do this though? At the end of the day, the fact that you have this sw installed will make it fair to infer that you are using this feature. You can disagree, but it's what the courts say that matters here, not what I say.
      - gambiting 8y ago
        The problem is that you could totally have truecrypt installed and not have a second hidden partition. There is no way to prove that you do. Of course, the court could throw you in jail for not being able to provide something that doesn't exist anyway, but yeah....I'd hope that the lack of proof here would help you win the case.
        cryptonector 8y ago
        A prosecutor, a jury, and a judge, will all have a chance to decide that you're telling the truth. There is not mathematical proof here (there never is in any trials, really), so it will all come down to: do we believe the LEO's and the defendant's experts' testimony? Recall, the defendant won't testify -- their lawyer won't let them -- but if they did, they'd probably do themselves in anyways, the court (jury, judge) won't believe them. There is no plausible deniability here, really.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Putting someone in jail because they won't provide a password to a partition that might exist is truly beyond the pale. If that happens we have completely discarded the notion of presumption of innocence.
      - aeternus 8y ago
        You can easily go a 3rd level (more) deep by adding another veracrypt file within the hidden partition. You could also use stenography techniques to hide your encrypted file/data within an image or video. There are also use-cases that don't include a hidden partition, ex: I keep private code repositories in a veracrypt partition to protect them in the event of laptop theft while not avoiding the perf hit of full disk encryption. There's no need for the hidden partition / plausible deniability for a use-case like that.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Which is why you have 10 passwords, only 1 of which has the important stuff on it. You are industiguisable from someone who has 9. What, are the police just going to keep you in jail? What if you really ARE innocent? Jail for life then, because they didn't find anything incriminating?
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      Free space management needs imply that at some point you must provably have all N passwords or that you're wasting some amount of space just to avoid that, but since that's dumb the fair inference is that you're not doing that, and that you have N passwords to reveal.
      - justinjlynn 8y ago
        Tools like this do not do free space management unless you've unlocked all hidden partitions. You are responsible for that. If you fill your partitions beyond capacity, you corrupt the other data in your other hidden partitions. Of course, unless you've unlocked all the hidden partitions you care about - then it can. However, well designed tools that do this have no way of knowing if you have.

Truecrypt always had that - one password decrypts into your real partition, the other decrypts the prepared one, with a clear OS. It's impossible to say there is anything in the space where the hidden partition resides, and you have provided a password so at least in theory you are clear.

cryptonector 8y ago
But it is possible to say that you have Truecrypt installed. Then the LEO just asks for the second password.
- lol768 8y ago
  > Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    They're not dumb. You installed the thing you're claiming gives you plausible deniability -- it's a fair inference that you wanted just that so that you could hide something, ergo the court will just demand that password. Which means you shouldn't install any such software unless you're going to have those hidden partitions and are willing to let LE have access.
    - cesarb 8y ago
      Do most users of TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt use this "hidden volume" functionality, or do they just want the basic full disk encryption? It wouldn't surprise me if users of plausible deniability were in the minority.
      - cryptonector 8y ago
        If you could show that most users never do this, you might have an argument in court. How would you do this though? At the end of the day, the fact that you have this sw installed will make it fair to infer that you are using this feature. You can disagree, but it's what the courts say that matters here, not what I say.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      The problem is that you could totally have truecrypt installed and not have a second hidden partition. There is no way to prove that you do. Of course, the court could throw you in jail for not being able to provide something that doesn't exist anyway, but yeah....I'd hope that the lack of proof here would help you win the case.
      - cryptonector 8y ago
        A prosecutor, a jury, and a judge, will all have a chance to decide that you're telling the truth. There is not mathematical proof here (there never is in any trials, really), so it will all come down to: do we believe the LEO's and the defendant's experts' testimony? Recall, the defendant won't testify -- their lawyer won't let them -- but if they did, they'd probably do themselves in anyways, the court (jury, judge) won't believe them. There is no plausible deniability here, really.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Putting someone in jail because they won't provide a password to a partition that might exist is truly beyond the pale. If that happens we have completely discarded the notion of presumption of innocence.
    - aeternus 8y ago
      You can easily go a 3rd level (more) deep by adding another veracrypt file within the hidden partition. You could also use stenography techniques to hide your encrypted file/data within an image or video. There are also use-cases that don't include a hidden partition, ex: I keep private code repositories in a veracrypt partition to protect them in the event of laptop theft while not avoiding the perf hit of full disk encryption. There's no need for the hidden partition / plausible deniability for a use-case like that.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Which is why you have 10 passwords, only 1 of which has the important stuff on it. You are industiguisable from someone who has 9. What, are the police just going to keep you in jail? What if you really ARE innocent? Jail for life then, because they didn't find anything incriminating?
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    Free space management needs imply that at some point you must provably have all N passwords or that you're wasting some amount of space just to avoid that, but since that's dumb the fair inference is that you're not doing that, and that you have N passwords to reveal.
    - justinjlynn 8y ago
      Tools like this do not do free space management unless you've unlocked all hidden partitions. You are responsible for that. If you fill your partitions beyond capacity, you corrupt the other data in your other hidden partitions. Of course, unless you've unlocked all the hidden partitions you care about - then it can. However, well designed tools that do this have no way of knowing if you have.