6 ms·

I have question to those who know more about these things: Instead of hidden volumes, wouldn't it be better to have an "under duress" password? The hard drive

I have question to those who know more about these things: Instead of hidden volumes, wouldn't it be better to have an "under duress" password? The hard drive is encrypted and sensitive folders are identified by the user. When a password is given all contents are decrypted. When a "under duress" password is given the sensitive folders are permanently wiped and all the (remaining, innoculous) contents are decrypted. This stops them from finding hidden volumes or operating systems because there are none. Wouldn't that be a better model, and much harder to figure out?

tedunangst 15y ago
Then they restore the hard drive from the cloned image they made before entering the password and ask you once more for the password. This time, with feeling.
- harshreality 15y ago
  They would also tack on extra charges for interfering with a police investigation by attempting to destroy evidence, and/or the court would find you in contempt.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I don't think that contempt would apply. Either obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence.
- repsilat 15y ago
  There might be a market for keeping your keys on some service "out there". Boot your computer, type in your password, your computer sends the password to the key service. If the password is correct they send back the key, if the password is the destruct codes they delete the key. No amount of hard-drive cloning will stop this. Paired with some other optional measures ("we delete the password unless you send an email every week" etc) and it's almost foolproof. You might still have a hard time arguing against destruction of evidence, though. I guess if your "don't delete the keys" email was "Please delete my encryption keys" you could be completely honest and they wouldn't believe you, resulting in your keys being deleted despite your complete cooperation.
  - nickik 15y ago
    I smell a startup. Great Idea by the way. Like Wikileaks you would have to replicate all your server in the countries that are the "freeist" or you need a very good system to hide where you are. Tor is a good exampel.
  - BCM43 15y ago
    You would need to trust that company with your key though.
- Sapient 15y ago
  How would they know the incriminating evidence had been wiped though?
drostie 15y ago
This is a common mistake in security -- assuming that the hacker plays by your rules. The police would just use a copy of the program which forgets to delete when the "on duress" password is provided. I imagine it'd require commenting out all of, say, five lines and burning the modified version of YourCryptoNameHere onto a live CD.
mattiask 15y ago
What you want to do is to have a password that decrypts the content to something innocently looking. If the encryption program has the feature to both "dual encrypt" and do an ordinary encryption it should be hard to prove anything :) Not sure how you go about doing that algorithmically though so it would resist reverse engineering the program
- underwater 15y ago
  TrueCrypt does exactly that. The problem is that everyone knows about it; so the police will always suspect there is a second hidden section.
  - nknight 15y ago
    But if you've done it right, they can't prove it. In US law, you can't convict someone criminally because you suspect they're withholding information, you have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
    - thaumaturgy 15y ago
      I've actually been in court for this kind of stuff. (Not as a defendant.) What actually happens is the prosecutor tells the court that they have X, Y, and Z evidence, which indicates the existence of W evidence, even though they can't actually get hold of W evidence. Then they don't charge you for W evidence directly, they just run the charges up for X, Y, and Z until you agree to a plea bargain anyway. Your ability to defend against tactics like this is 100% dependent on the size of your bank account, which, by the way, may also be compromised if the prosecutors can convince the right people that you made any money at all on your illegal activities. This is why I am mostly blasé about things like TrueCrypt's capabilities or this particular part of the law or what-have-you. If you're doing something illegal involving a computer, you're already screwed anyway -- unless you're independently wealthy and have some serious connections.
      - nknight 15y ago
underwater 15y ago
It would still be possible to copy the hard drive at a lower level before password entry. You could then compare before and after password entry and see that large chunks of data have been modified.
- simcop2387 15y ago
  Doesn't have to be large chunks, just one block that stored the encryption key for the other partition. All you have to do is scrub the key from the drive and it's effectively erased.
Czarnian 15y ago
I was thinking along the same lines, but instead of wiping the file, it changes the password to a randomized 20 character string. If you're doing anything that risks getting pinched, it's probably better to take the obstruction rap than whatever it is you're being investigated for.
- dedward 15y ago
  or use a better method to keep your data unknown to the world that doesnt requre as much precision handling... or like, dont break the law, or dont get caught.

tedunangst 15y ago

Then they restore the hard drive from the cloned image they made before entering the password and ask you once more for the password. This time, with feeling.

harshreality 15y ago
They would also tack on extra charges for interfering with a police investigation by attempting to destroy evidence, and/or the court would find you in contempt.
- pyre 15y ago
  I don't think that contempt would apply. Either obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence.
repsilat 15y ago
There might be a market for keeping your keys on some service "out there". Boot your computer, type in your password, your computer sends the password to the key service. If the password is correct they send back the key, if the password is the destruct codes they delete the key. No amount of hard-drive cloning will stop this. Paired with some other optional measures ("we delete the password unless you send an email every week" etc) and it's almost foolproof. You might still have a hard time arguing against destruction of evidence, though. I guess if your "don't delete the keys" email was "Please delete my encryption keys" you could be completely honest and they wouldn't believe you, resulting in your keys being deleted despite your complete cooperation.
- nickik 15y ago
  I smell a startup. Great Idea by the way. Like Wikileaks you would have to replicate all your server in the countries that are the "freeist" or you need a very good system to hide where you are. Tor is a good exampel.
- BCM43 15y ago
  You would need to trust that company with your key though.
Sapient 15y ago
How would they know the incriminating evidence had been wiped though?

drostie 15y ago

This is a common mistake in security -- assuming that the hacker plays by your rules. The police would just use a copy of the program which forgets to delete when the "on duress" password is provided. I imagine it'd require commenting out all of, say, five lines and burning the modified version of YourCryptoNameHere onto a live CD.

mattiask 15y ago

What you want to do is to have a password that decrypts the content to something innocently looking. If the encryption program has the feature to both "dual encrypt" and do an ordinary encryption it should be hard to prove anything :) Not sure how you go about doing that algorithmically though so it would resist reverse engineering the program

underwater 15y ago
TrueCrypt does exactly that. The problem is that everyone knows about it; so the police will always suspect there is a second hidden section.
- nknight 15y ago
  But if you've done it right, they can't prove it. In US law, you can't convict someone criminally because you suspect they're withholding information, you have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    I've actually been in court for this kind of stuff. (Not as a defendant.) What actually happens is the prosecutor tells the court that they have X, Y, and Z evidence, which indicates the existence of W evidence, even though they can't actually get hold of W evidence. Then they don't charge you for W evidence directly, they just run the charges up for X, Y, and Z until you agree to a plea bargain anyway. Your ability to defend against tactics like this is 100% dependent on the size of your bank account, which, by the way, may also be compromised if the prosecutors can convince the right people that you made any money at all on your illegal activities. This is why I am mostly blasé about things like TrueCrypt's capabilities or this particular part of the law or what-have-you. If you're doing something illegal involving a computer, you're already screwed anyway -- unless you're independently wealthy and have some serious connections.
    - nknight 15y ago

underwater 15y ago

It would still be possible to copy the hard drive at a lower level before password entry. You could then compare before and after password entry and see that large chunks of data have been modified.

simcop2387 15y ago
Doesn't have to be large chunks, just one block that stored the encryption key for the other partition. All you have to do is scrub the key from the drive and it's effectively erased.

Czarnian 15y ago

I was thinking along the same lines, but instead of wiping the file, it changes the password to a randomized 20 character string. If you're doing anything that risks getting pinched, it's probably better to take the obstruction rap than whatever it is you're being investigated for.

dedward 15y ago
or use a better method to keep your data unknown to the world that doesnt requre as much precision handling... or like, dont break the law, or dont get caught.