4 ms·

Can anyone shed any light if deniable encryption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption) would have

by ceeK 13y ago

Can anyone shed any light if deniable encryption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption) would have been useful here?

Zikes 13y ago
For all we know, it was.
- gejjaxxita 13y ago
  It would be a bit crazy to use incriminating information as your innocuous message after going through all the trouble of using plausible deniability though?
  - Zikes 13y ago
    Actually that makes perfect sense. You couldn't very easily plausibly deny that you provided the correct decryption key if all they found was photos of kittens, right? Better to let them find something, as opposed to detailed plans about your terrorists plans or confederates.
  - TheLoneWolfling 13y ago
    Eh, depends on what you mean by "incriminating information". In this case? Yes. A bit crazy. But in general? If I was using a hidden volume for something "deep" I'd put stuff that was technically borderline illegal (or at least frowned upon / embarrassing) on the "visible" encrypted volume. ISOs of games I own with stripped DRM, (legitimate) ebook copies of adultish graphic novels, chat logs, that sort of thing. It would make it much more deniable that I had a hidden volume. Nothing that could get me sent to jail for too long, and (probably) nothing that would ruin things long-term, but things that would be relatively embarrassing if they got out.
adrianoconnor 13y ago
I doubt there are many UK lawyers specialising in this niche area of law stalking the HN forums right now. But you never know :) I wonder if a big part of the reason for his jailing is that he actually did give them the password in the end - making it less likely that he had forgotten it, and that he was deliberately trying to pervert the course of justice. Of course, it doesn't help that he did seem to have plenty to hide, and he wasn't in a great position anyway.
- vidarh 13y ago
  It really annoys me with articles like this when the chronology is unclear. If we was given 4 extra months after he gave them the password, then that's quite different than if he was given 4 extra months before.
toyg 13y ago
This guy had been arrested as part of internal terrorism investigations, i.e. the stick was handled by GCHQ. I bet that they can spot a TrueCrypt or similar scheme in a heartbeat (if anything because it's been a refrain in most pseudo-security fora ever since this law was passed). So no, I don't think it would have helped. That sort of deniability is only good for lighter situations.
- weavejester 13y ago
  Most drives encrypted with TrueCrypt don't have a hidden volume, and there's no way of directly determining that a hidden volume exists. If the normal encrypted volume looked particularly empty or unused, and the police knew the suspect used the drive regularly, they might be able to make a good case that a hidden drive must exist. But it's very dependent on the circumstances.

by ceeK 13y ago

Can anyone shed any light if deniable encryption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption) would have been useful here?

Zikes 13y ago

For all we know, it was.

gejjaxxita 13y ago
It would be a bit crazy to use incriminating information as your innocuous message after going through all the trouble of using plausible deniability though?
- Zikes 13y ago
  Actually that makes perfect sense. You couldn't very easily plausibly deny that you provided the correct decryption key if all they found was photos of kittens, right? Better to let them find something, as opposed to detailed plans about your terrorists plans or confederates.
- TheLoneWolfling 13y ago
  Eh, depends on what you mean by "incriminating information". In this case? Yes. A bit crazy. But in general? If I was using a hidden volume for something "deep" I'd put stuff that was technically borderline illegal (or at least frowned upon / embarrassing) on the "visible" encrypted volume. ISOs of games I own with stripped DRM, (legitimate) ebook copies of adultish graphic novels, chat logs, that sort of thing. It would make it much more deniable that I had a hidden volume. Nothing that could get me sent to jail for too long, and (probably) nothing that would ruin things long-term, but things that would be relatively embarrassing if they got out.

adrianoconnor 13y ago

I doubt there are many UK lawyers specialising in this niche area of law stalking the HN forums right now. But you never know :) I wonder if a big part of the reason for his jailing is that he actually did give them the password in the end - making it less likely that he had forgotten it, and that he was deliberately trying to pervert the course of justice. Of course, it doesn't help that he did seem to have plenty to hide, and he wasn't in a great position anyway.

vidarh 13y ago
It really annoys me with articles like this when the chronology is unclear. If we was given 4 extra months after he gave them the password, then that's quite different than if he was given 4 extra months before.

toyg 13y ago

This guy had been arrested as part of internal terrorism investigations, i.e. the stick was handled by GCHQ. I bet that they can spot a TrueCrypt or similar scheme in a heartbeat (if anything because it's been a refrain in most pseudo-security fora ever since this law was passed). So no, I don't think it would have helped. That sort of deniability is only good for lighter situations.

weavejester 13y ago
Most drives encrypted with TrueCrypt don't have a hidden volume, and there's no way of directly determining that a hidden volume exists. If the normal encrypted volume looked particularly empty or unused, and the police knew the suspect used the drive regularly, they might be able to make a good case that a hidden drive must exist. But it's very dependent on the circumstances.