6 ms·

- Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement. ( http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/26pz9b/truecrypt_development_has_ended_052814/chtl7jb http://www.reddi

by BoppreH 12y ago

- Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement. ( http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/26pz9b/truecrypt_development_has_ended_052814/chtl7jb http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/26pz9b/truecrypt_dev... ) - The version there works and does not seem to have a trojan, so probably not a regular hacker. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813373 ) - Instructs to migrate to dubious alternatives, so it's not a legit security effort. - License change, precise instructions and decrypt-only version indicate it's not a completely rushed press release. (license change: https://github.com/warewolf/truecrypt/compare/master...7.2#diff-dc5cde275269b574b34b1204b9221cb2L1 https://github.com/warewolf/truecrypt/compare/master...7.2#d... ) - On the other hand the Linux instruction is a joke, so it's not completely well thought either. ( http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OtherPlatforms.html http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OtherPlatforms.html ) - The security audit was so far ok, so it's not a sudden vulnerability discovered there. ( https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/471741836722073600 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/47174183672207360... ) - No details whatsoever other than a "may contain unfixed security issues", so it might be an automated release (doesn't know what happened) or gagged reaction (can't say what happened). - Source code includes unrelated changes, so it probably comes from a developer. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7812674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7812674 ) If I had to wager a crazy bet, I would go with newly developed Dead-Man's-Switch gone wrong. Edit: someone on Reddit has an interesting view that it may be a halfhearted attempt at complying with an NSA request ( http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/26pxol/truecrypt_is_dead/chte8r2 http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/26pxol/truecrypt_i... ).

deciplex 12y ago
>If I had to wager a crazy bet, I would go with newly developed Dead-Man's-Switch gone wrong. That's an interesting thought, although I don't think there's any way to verify that it's actually gone 'wrong', is there?
- BoppreH 12y ago
  If it was operator error during the development of a Dead-Man's-Switch, the developer will probably come out in public explaining the situation and apologizing. And if this is a Dead-Man's-Switch gone right, why are they advocating the use of BitLocker and searching for random Linux packages? Edit: is "coming out in public" the correct term here? I have a feeling it only applies to closet-like scenarios.
  - Shank 12y ago
    If it was a hastily constructed DMS (such as in the event of imminent threat), the author may not have had time to research and test a comparable Linux alternative. If you knew that something bad could happen, you would work as fast as possible to set it up, rather than risk not being able to have anything working in time. The reason why is quite simple: if a malicious third party were to raid or steal the private key, this kind of deterrent message should act as ample warning not to trust any further releases than what has already been released. If a government agent were to capture a developer and hold him or her hostage to attain the key (and thus release a backdoor), this type of DMS would immediately draw scrutiny to any actor attempting to release a new version that claims differently. If anything, the implicit statement is "continue using 7.1a and do not update beyond that in the event that something newer is offered." In light of the recent audit, it appears that 7.1a is secure -- and as a result, it can still be used for cryptography purposes (however subsequent releases may not).
    - BoppreH 12y ago
      Why have dozens of steps and seventeen screenshots detailing how to migrate a Windows partition and only a joke line for the Linux version? And why Bitlocker? Then there was the license change, new version with different features... This imbalance of effort strikes me as incredibly odd if the author was merely rushed.
      - vertis 12y ago
        Linux users can be trusted to work things out for themselves?
infosecslave 12y ago
Bitlocker is a less dubious alternative than it seems, I'd rather use Bitlocker than a completely unmaintained crypto software from anonymous developers. Also you have to consider the fact that Truecrypt project was started before FDE was popular, maybe their goal all this time was to popularize such encryption. With XPs demise that goal would have been achieved as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker.
bothuman 12y ago
>- The version there works and does not seem to have a trojan, so probably not a regular hacker. Incorrect, all the guy did was compare diffs of the source. He did not compile the source to make sure the binaries matched.
- BoppreH 12y ago
  Are you sure? He does say "binaries when run make no unexpected...". And matching binaries is not a trivial task because of OS, compiler and SDK versions. The last time someone did this for Truecrypt it made the news: https://madiba.encs.concordia.ca/~x_decarn/truecrypt-binaries-analysis/ https://madiba.encs.concordia.ca/~x_decarn/truecrypt-binarie...
  - wielebny 12y ago
    Binaries could have code that will activate in future.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - smellf 12y ago
      If you have a copy of the source that you've vetted, and you can compile it in such a way that the resulting binary is a bit-for-bit match of the developer released binary, then you know that either there is no future-activation code or you missed it in your review or your compiler was itself compiled maliciously with the intent of inserting malicious code into that exact version of truecrypt every time it was compiled. Or there is no future activation code.
      - nobotty 12y ago
        which is a fucking pain in the ass as stated such that it is a newsworthy feat?
BoppreH 12y ago
infosecslave said in a dead comment: [...] you have to consider the fact that Truecrypt project was started before FDE was popular, maybe their goal all this time was to popularize such encryption. With XPs demise that goal would have been achieved as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker. Your comment is dead but makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the message on the website: The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. I don't agree Bitlocker is a sensible alternative, but this piece does fit the puzzle.
- usefulcat 12y ago
  "..as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker." It's only available in Ultimate and Enterprise Vista/Win7 and Pro/Enterprise versions of Win8. Lots of machines ship(ped) with only Win7 Home Premium or vanilla Win8.
- FootballMuse 12y ago
  Server 2003 is still a supported version of windows for another year.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- anaxag0ras 12y ago
  One of the planned features according to the TrueCrypt website, was "Full support for Windows 8". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Planned_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Planned_features
Cairn 12y ago
If I were to wager a non-crazy, Occam's Razor-compatible bet, I'd say the author had a bad day, saw one too many digs at the quality of their decade-long work, got pissy, and decided to call it quits. I love popcorn-munching news as much as anyone, but this probably isn't it.
- tacotime 12y ago
  Then why pour so much work into re-authoring and re-releasing the program for all os's? And why offer such a canned bullshit explanation like the end of the availability of windows xp? All to show the trolls how much they miss truecrypt now that it's gone? I don't think so... anyone can find an old cloned repo/bin. I don't think it's impossible but it doesn't sit right with me that someone who could write/manage a program as objectively beneficial to society as truecrypt could also write such horrid bullshit that stands against every principal of FOSS. That being said, I've witnessed lives torn apart by depression first hand and it can be easy to idealize a person you've never even met so who really knows.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Well, free project by anonymous developers right? At some point the reward metric for that shifts away from your interests. It's never going to be picked up by like, major companies for enterprise-y use since Bitlocker has that market sewn up and it's never been really practical to use with Linux (from what I recall of looking into FDE for my notebook a few times in the past).
- msumpter 12y ago
  That's been my thinking as well since this came out yesterday. And it kind of makes sense why they modified the license to no longer require attribution, the only thing left in 7.2 is decryption related code, this would allow 3rd parties to distribute derivative works around decrypting legacy volumes (and possibly migrating to other encryption methods). But would stop anyone from creating a fork of earlier versions that still contained the encryption routines.
r0muald 12y ago
I'm taking the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I don't want to, but: > Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement. Under normal circumstances, I would assume the same, but given the exceptional situation and chaos ensued, I think it's not entirely silly to think that this could be a case of http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/ That could explain the inconsistency of a hypothetical scenario where the key is compromised by a third-party but the owner doesn't come out. If they are under physical threat, I suspect a lot of the "normal" measures like revocation certificates would be hard/impossible to achieve.
rustyx 12y ago
I can imagine how TrueCrypt with all the features like the plausible deniability was a major pain in terms of 'national security'. And it is apparent the project was shut down by the original developer in a way that at best satisfies a gag order but doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny, so I see only two possible explanations for what happened: 1. An NSL with a gag order; 2. A nice lump sum of money in exchange for silence. Or of course a combination of the two which is the most likely. I don't blame the dev - he obviously spent years developing software which provided nothing in return. I can only say one thing - if you want to hide stuff from the big brother, don't use BitLocker! ;-)

by BoppreH 12y ago

deciplex 12y ago

>If I had to wager a crazy bet, I would go with newly developed Dead-Man's-Switch gone wrong. That's an interesting thought, although I don't think there's any way to verify that it's actually gone 'wrong', is there?

BoppreH 12y ago
If it was operator error during the development of a Dead-Man's-Switch, the developer will probably come out in public explaining the situation and apologizing. And if this is a Dead-Man's-Switch gone right, why are they advocating the use of BitLocker and searching for random Linux packages? Edit: is "coming out in public" the correct term here? I have a feeling it only applies to closet-like scenarios.
- Shank 12y ago
  If it was a hastily constructed DMS (such as in the event of imminent threat), the author may not have had time to research and test a comparable Linux alternative. If you knew that something bad could happen, you would work as fast as possible to set it up, rather than risk not being able to have anything working in time. The reason why is quite simple: if a malicious third party were to raid or steal the private key, this kind of deterrent message should act as ample warning not to trust any further releases than what has already been released. If a government agent were to capture a developer and hold him or her hostage to attain the key (and thus release a backdoor), this type of DMS would immediately draw scrutiny to any actor attempting to release a new version that claims differently. If anything, the implicit statement is "continue using 7.1a and do not update beyond that in the event that something newer is offered." In light of the recent audit, it appears that 7.1a is secure -- and as a result, it can still be used for cryptography purposes (however subsequent releases may not).
  - BoppreH 12y ago
    Why have dozens of steps and seventeen screenshots detailing how to migrate a Windows partition and only a joke line for the Linux version? And why Bitlocker? Then there was the license change, new version with different features... This imbalance of effort strikes me as incredibly odd if the author was merely rushed.
    - vertis 12y ago
      Linux users can be trusted to work things out for themselves?

infosecslave 12y ago

Bitlocker is a less dubious alternative than it seems, I'd rather use Bitlocker than a completely unmaintained crypto software from anonymous developers. Also you have to consider the fact that Truecrypt project was started before FDE was popular, maybe their goal all this time was to popularize such encryption. With XPs demise that goal would have been achieved as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker.

bothuman 12y ago

>- The version there works and does not seem to have a trojan, so probably not a regular hacker. Incorrect, all the guy did was compare diffs of the source. He did not compile the source to make sure the binaries matched.

BoppreH 12y ago
Are you sure? He does say "binaries when run make no unexpected...". And matching binaries is not a trivial task because of OS, compiler and SDK versions. The last time someone did this for Truecrypt it made the news: https://madiba.encs.concordia.ca/~x_decarn/truecrypt-binaries-analysis/ https://madiba.encs.concordia.ca/~x_decarn/truecrypt-binarie...
- wielebny 12y ago
  Binaries could have code that will activate in future.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - smellf 12y ago
    If you have a copy of the source that you've vetted, and you can compile it in such a way that the resulting binary is a bit-for-bit match of the developer released binary, then you know that either there is no future-activation code or you missed it in your review or your compiler was itself compiled maliciously with the intent of inserting malicious code into that exact version of truecrypt every time it was compiled. Or there is no future activation code.
    - nobotty 12y ago
      which is a fucking pain in the ass as stated such that it is a newsworthy feat?

BoppreH 12y ago

infosecslave said in a dead comment: [...] you have to consider the fact that Truecrypt project was started before FDE was popular, maybe their goal all this time was to popularize such encryption. With XPs demise that goal would have been achieved as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker. Your comment is dead but makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the message on the website: The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. I don't agree Bitlocker is a sensible alternative, but this piece does fit the puzzle.

usefulcat 12y ago
"..as every current Windows version comes with Bitlocker." It's only available in Ultimate and Enterprise Vista/Win7 and Pro/Enterprise versions of Win8. Lots of machines ship(ped) with only Win7 Home Premium or vanilla Win8.
FootballMuse 12y ago
Server 2003 is still a supported version of windows for another year.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anaxag0ras 12y ago
One of the planned features according to the TrueCrypt website, was "Full support for Windows 8". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Planned_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Planned_features

Cairn 12y ago

If I were to wager a non-crazy, Occam's Razor-compatible bet, I'd say the author had a bad day, saw one too many digs at the quality of their decade-long work, got pissy, and decided to call it quits. I love popcorn-munching news as much as anyone, but this probably isn't it.

tacotime 12y ago
Then why pour so much work into re-authoring and re-releasing the program for all os's? And why offer such a canned bullshit explanation like the end of the availability of windows xp? All to show the trolls how much they miss truecrypt now that it's gone? I don't think so... anyone can find an old cloned repo/bin. I don't think it's impossible but it doesn't sit right with me that someone who could write/manage a program as objectively beneficial to society as truecrypt could also write such horrid bullshit that stands against every principal of FOSS. That being said, I've witnessed lives torn apart by depression first hand and it can be easy to idealize a person you've never even met so who really knows.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Well, free project by anonymous developers right? At some point the reward metric for that shifts away from your interests. It's never going to be picked up by like, major companies for enterprise-y use since Bitlocker has that market sewn up and it's never been really practical to use with Linux (from what I recall of looking into FDE for my notebook a few times in the past).
msumpter 12y ago
That's been my thinking as well since this came out yesterday. And it kind of makes sense why they modified the license to no longer require attribution, the only thing left in 7.2 is decryption related code, this would allow 3rd parties to distribute derivative works around decrypting legacy volumes (and possibly migrating to other encryption methods). But would stop anyone from creating a fork of earlier versions that still contained the encryption routines.

r0muald 12y ago

I'm taking the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I don't want to, but: > Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement. Under normal circumstances, I would assume the same, but given the exceptional situation and chaos ensued, I think it's not entirely silly to think that this could be a case of http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/ That could explain the inconsistency of a hypothetical scenario where the key is compromised by a third-party but the owner doesn't come out. If they are under physical threat, I suspect a lot of the "normal" measures like revocation certificates would be hard/impossible to achieve.

rustyx 12y ago

I can imagine how TrueCrypt with all the features like the plausible deniability was a major pain in terms of 'national security'. And it is apparent the project was shut down by the original developer in a way that at best satisfies a gag order but doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny, so I see only two possible explanations for what happened: 1. An NSL with a gag order; 2. A nice lump sum of money in exchange for silence. Or of course a combination of the two which is the most likely. I don't blame the dev - he obviously spent years developing software which provided nothing in return. I can only say one thing - if you want to hide stuff from the big brother, don't use BitLocker! ;-)