13 ms·

Replace TrueCrypt – Candidate alternatives

106 points by chmars 12y ago

breakall 12y ago
The Grugq wrote a post [1] discussing TrueCrypt alternatives back in October of last year. It also mentions tc-play and cryptsetup, but additionally mentions tomb [2], which looks very interesting to me. But while I once wrote for my mom a document with step-by-step instructions on how to create and use a TrueCrypt volume to keep some work documents secured, I don't see any alternative in either post that is going to be as accessible to normal folks (like her) as TrueCrypt. [1] http://grugq.tumblr.com/post/60464139008/alternative-truecrypt-implementations http://grugq.tumblr.com/post/60464139008/alternative-truecry... [2] http://www.dyne.org/software/tomb/ http://www.dyne.org/software/tomb/
- dobbsbob 12y ago
  No reason you can't write a script that automates cryptsetup/luks, or a UI for PySkein or Java Skein, or the plenty of Keccak implementations.
y-satellite 12y ago
A lot of discussions of TrueCrypt replacements I've read today miss a major point, which is that users of the Windows version are now left with no reliable, up-to-date software with an equivalent feature set and security guarantees. I know we tend to be *nix-heavy here, but some of us used TrueCrypt because it was the best solution for Windows, not because it was cross-platform.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  We can always use TrueCrypt, which everyone was fine with and most people were recommending 2 days ago, even though it hadn't been updated it 2 years.
  - jmnicolas 12y ago
    Yes but 2 days ago Truecrypt looked like it was backed by some serious devs (albeit anonymous).
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      Who hadn't updated their code in 2 years. It's stable software that's likely more secure than most things you'd switch to, whether or not it has active development. I'm not saying you don't want to keep an eye out for a new alternative, but you may want to wait for the dust to settle, since in response to this, it seems likely that we'll see a TC fork.
  - y-satellite 12y ago
    We can, as long as you believe these new warnings shouldn't be taken at face value. It adds a layer of doubt to the situation that wasn't there before.
- dublinben 12y ago
  TrueCrypt version 7.1a didn't suddenly stop working yesterday. It is still just as secure and easy to use as it ever was. Relying on TC into the future might not be wise, but there's no reason for users to immediately dump it.
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    This isn't necessarily true. If we take the TC message at face value, it seems like we should all move away from it ASAP.
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      If you take the TC message at face value, you should "just search for encrypt and use whatever pops up" on Linux, and use these settings for encryption on OS X: http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OSXNewImage.png http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OSXNewImage.png Needless to say, I think you can take their cryptic recommendations with a huge grain of salt.
      - higherpurpose 12y ago
        Don't forget to set encryption to "none" on Mac OS: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/471998315437883392 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/47199831543788339...
- LaSombra 12y ago
  One of the greatest TrueCrypt features, to me, was that it was multiplatform, much like GPG. Now I have no idea what to do...
- Spooky23 12y ago
  If you need full disk encryption, how is appropriately configured BitLocker any less reliable, or offering fewer "security guarantees" than TrueCrypt? The knee jerk reaction here is "omg, prism, Microsoft!". But the reality is that you have no idea who the TrueCrypt people are and their level of trustworthiness --- for all you know they work for NSA or FSB! If you are a windows user, use the manual and use BitLocker for FDE and EFS for folder and files.
  - y-satellite 12y ago
    The most obvious difference is that the TrueCrypt code has had at least the first stage of a formal security audit done, which uncovered no evidence of backdoors. With BitLocker being closed source and no public audits being done, you don't have the same guarantees. BitLocker may be perfectly secure, but I feel I'm justified in saying that its status is much more uncertain.
    - acqq 12y ago
      The most aspects of TC were never publicly audited. People were using it on blind faith only: betting that if somebody had cared to audit he'd publish his findings too. You can have the same assumption for BitLocker.
      - kaoD 12y ago
        You can't audit BitLocker, its source is not available. That's a huge difference.
        acqq 12y ago
        Microsoft has special licensing models where the sources for OS are available. Somebody looks at that, at least comparable to that how somebody was expected to detect the bug in OpenSSL, or to review TrueCrypt and nobody did until recently, because, well let somebody else care. So as far as I understand, it is possible to audit Microsoft's crypto code too. I can imagine the audit of crypto code wouldn't find anything. The real problem is: http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/05/16/0955_peter_gutmann.pdf http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/05/16/0955_peter_gutmann.pdf "Crypto won't save you either" "Crypto Summary: Number of attacks that broke the crypto: 0 Number of attacks that bypassed the crypto: All the rest - No matter how strong the crypto was, or how large the keys were, the attackers walked around it"
- cjg 12y ago
  Unfortunately it doesn't support Windows 8 because of the UEFI problem.
x1798DE 12y ago
I've said this before in a few places, and it's (semi-) relevant here, but I really think people need to relax about replacing TrueCrypt. Despite the "security concerns" expressed in the TrueCrypt page, which were clearly a joke, there's no reason to think TrueCrypt has any significant vulnerabilities at this time, and the second phase of the audit will take place as scheduled. The last time TrueCrypt was updated was two years ago - it's stable software that doesn't need constant tweaking, so the developers bowing out is not a problem. Chances are, someone will either fork TrueCrypt (version 3.1 of the TrueCrypt license seems to make this a legitimate possiblity) or create a replacement, possibly using the same container format. TrueCrypt is pretty much just as good as it was before this happened. Give it a couple of months before you start switching over to some other solution (which is likely to be less "battle-hardened" than the incredibly popular TrueCrypt anyway, and thus somewhat more likely to be insecure). There's no rush.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Alupis 12y ago
  I agree. There was no rush to switch away 6 months ago. The latest version (besides the new decrypt-only release) was over a year ago. It's pretty solid from my use-case... and the audit should relax any fears (nothing obvious has been discovered yet). I think the "security concerns" expressed on the truecrypt page are more-or-less for future visitors to understand the project is not maintained anymore (albeit a poor way to go about expressing that)
- loteck 12y ago
  >which were clearly a joke There's a lot of information flying around so I may have missed something. Why is the official page, which states that there are security concerns, "clearly" a joke?
  - cavilling_elite 12y ago
    I think it is the flippant manner in which they expose the security concern and recommend a product few would actually use.
tachion 12y ago
Has no one noticed there are alternative implementations already, like BSD-licensed tcplay implementation in DragonFlyBSD?
- bmelton 12y ago
  You do realize that is the very first recommended candidate in the article, right?
  - tachion 12y ago
    I do, as you can see in my comment, but no one else (here in the comments) seems to notice that fact, that this particular implementation is fully open source alternative available since 2011...
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Apologies then. I don't think it's that people are unaware of alternatives at large, rather, that tcplay is a limited option at best. If you're using Linux, or DragonFly, or even Tails, then sure, it should work fine (which is likely why it's being considered as a replacement in Tails), but it doesn't have stated support for OS X, Windows, etc. TrueCrypt, on the other hand (despite whatever else ails it) is supported on all of the above.
bni 12y ago
I have been using cryptmount for years, and I can highly recommend it. It is a friendlier, more easy to use interface to the crypto functionality that exists in the linux kernel (dm-crypt)
CWuestefeld 12y ago
Wikipedia has a page comparing OTFE (on-the-fly-encryption) products [1]. It compares them on features such as operating system, Hidden containers,, Pre-boot authentication, Single sign-on, Custom authentication, Multiple keys, Passphrase strengthening, Hardware acceleration, TPM, Filesystems, Two-factor authentication [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_s...
eliteraspberrie 12y ago
I'll mention my theory of what happened with TrueCrypt here, because it's relevant to a search for alternatives. I believe TrueCrypt was started as a student project, and was no longer worth the effort to the developer(s). For a student or young developer interesting in cryptography, the reward is in the work itself, and in other people using the software. A decade later, though, with less free time, it's much less fun. At that point, a developer could either commercialize their work, or abandon it. TrueCrypt had very little chance of commercial success, since full-disk encryption comes with all new operating systems, so it's been abandoned. My conclusion is that only for-pay (open-source or not) FDE software can be a viable alternative to TrueCrypt, anything else will eventually be abandoned too. Consider that every project mentioned on this page is based on dm-crypt, part of the Linux kernel, which is supported financially by Intel, HP, and so on. That is a viable, long-term solution, and probably the only one. But if we want a diversity of cryptography software, we are going to have to start paying for it.
- hippich 12y ago
  This all could make sense if license for TC would be open source, like MIT, GPL or AGPL. If he simply do not want work on it - no problem, just give it to people who want to keep it running.
- ultramancool 12y ago
  I disagree. It's entirely possible to have a good free (as in beer and freedom) full disk encryption tool. In fact, we have several which are in quite wide use today. See: dm-crypt, loop-aes, luks, tcplay, encfs, ecryptfs, etc (okay, some of these aren't FDE tools in and of themselves, but parts of a system which can be used for FDE). Anyone who uses FDE on Linux is surely using one or two of these. It's really just a matter of someone being motivated enough to develop one for Windows. The entire reason for TrueCrypt's popularity over Bitlocker was that it was open source software. All this means is that one developer got sick and tired of it, which is completely understandable, but it can absolutely not be extrapolated to say that all have. DiskCryptor is currently looking like the next big viable alternative for an open source Windows FDE tool. I'm hoping we see some EFI support though, so I can finally get off BIOS mode. In my opinion, the best method is to gather a few skilled Windows driver developers to craft a driver based around existing technology, like FreeOTFE, which supports dm-crypt images. It'll be interesting to see what happens, I certainly think the demand and interest is high enough that we can get some good people on the case. Hopefully some who won't select a ridiculous license.
massysett 12y ago
None of these replace TrueCrypt. One thing that made TrueCrypt interesting was that you could use the same volume on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Items listed in the article are Linux only.
JamesTGibson 12y ago
The only good alternative I have found is documented on this thread: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/tutorial-windows-system-drive-encryption-using-diskcryptor-truecrypt-alternative.364446/ http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/tutorial-windows-syst... and there is a video that demonstrates it being used so people can see it in action before they try it.

106 points by chmars 12y ago

The Grugq wrote a post [1] discussing TrueCrypt alternatives back in October of last year. It also mentions tc-play and cryptsetup, but additionally mentions tomb [2], which looks very interesting to me. But while I once wrote for my mom a document with step-by-step instructions on how to create and use a TrueCrypt volume to keep some work documents secured, I don't see any alternative in either post that is going to be as accessible to normal folks (like her) as TrueCrypt. [1] http://grugq.tumblr.com/post/60464139008/alternative-truecrypt-implementations http://grugq.tumblr.com/post/60464139008/alternative-truecry... [2] http://www.dyne.org/software/tomb/ http://www.dyne.org/software/tomb/

dobbsbob 12y ago
No reason you can't write a script that automates cryptsetup/luks, or a UI for PySkein or Java Skein, or the plenty of Keccak implementations.

y-satellite 12y ago

A lot of discussions of TrueCrypt replacements I've read today miss a major point, which is that users of the Windows version are now left with no reliable, up-to-date software with an equivalent feature set and security guarantees. I know we tend to be *nix-heavy here, but some of us used TrueCrypt because it was the best solution for Windows, not because it was cross-platform.

x1798DE 12y ago
We can always use TrueCrypt, which everyone was fine with and most people were recommending 2 days ago, even though it hadn't been updated it 2 years.
- jmnicolas 12y ago
  Yes but 2 days ago Truecrypt looked like it was backed by some serious devs (albeit anonymous).
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    Who hadn't updated their code in 2 years. It's stable software that's likely more secure than most things you'd switch to, whether or not it has active development. I'm not saying you don't want to keep an eye out for a new alternative, but you may want to wait for the dust to settle, since in response to this, it seems likely that we'll see a TC fork.
- y-satellite 12y ago
  We can, as long as you believe these new warnings shouldn't be taken at face value. It adds a layer of doubt to the situation that wasn't there before.
dublinben 12y ago
TrueCrypt version 7.1a didn't suddenly stop working yesterday. It is still just as secure and easy to use as it ever was. Relying on TC into the future might not be wise, but there's no reason for users to immediately dump it.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  This isn't necessarily true. If we take the TC message at face value, it seems like we should all move away from it ASAP.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    If you take the TC message at face value, you should "just search for encrypt and use whatever pops up" on Linux, and use these settings for encryption on OS X: http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OSXNewImage.png http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/OSXNewImage.png Needless to say, I think you can take their cryptic recommendations with a huge grain of salt.
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      Don't forget to set encryption to "none" on Mac OS: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/471998315437883392 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/47199831543788339...
LaSombra 12y ago
One of the greatest TrueCrypt features, to me, was that it was multiplatform, much like GPG. Now I have no idea what to do...
Spooky23 12y ago
If you need full disk encryption, how is appropriately configured BitLocker any less reliable, or offering fewer "security guarantees" than TrueCrypt? The knee jerk reaction here is "omg, prism, Microsoft!". But the reality is that you have no idea who the TrueCrypt people are and their level of trustworthiness --- for all you know they work for NSA or FSB! If you are a windows user, use the manual and use BitLocker for FDE and EFS for folder and files.
- y-satellite 12y ago
  The most obvious difference is that the TrueCrypt code has had at least the first stage of a formal security audit done, which uncovered no evidence of backdoors. With BitLocker being closed source and no public audits being done, you don't have the same guarantees. BitLocker may be perfectly secure, but I feel I'm justified in saying that its status is much more uncertain.
  - acqq 12y ago
    The most aspects of TC were never publicly audited. People were using it on blind faith only: betting that if somebody had cared to audit he'd publish his findings too. You can have the same assumption for BitLocker.
    - kaoD 12y ago
      You can't audit BitLocker, its source is not available. That's a huge difference.
      - acqq 12y ago
        Microsoft has special licensing models where the sources for OS are available. Somebody looks at that, at least comparable to that how somebody was expected to detect the bug in OpenSSL, or to review TrueCrypt and nobody did until recently, because, well let somebody else care. So as far as I understand, it is possible to audit Microsoft's crypto code too. I can imagine the audit of crypto code wouldn't find anything. The real problem is: http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/05/16/0955_peter_gutmann.pdf http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/05/16/0955_peter_gutmann.pdf "Crypto won't save you either" "Crypto Summary: Number of attacks that broke the crypto: 0 Number of attacks that bypassed the crypto: All the rest - No matter how strong the crypto was, or how large the keys were, the attackers walked around it"
cjg 12y ago
Unfortunately it doesn't support Windows 8 because of the UEFI problem.

x1798DE 12y ago

I've said this before in a few places, and it's (semi-) relevant here, but I really think people need to relax about replacing TrueCrypt. Despite the "security concerns" expressed in the TrueCrypt page, which were clearly a joke, there's no reason to think TrueCrypt has any significant vulnerabilities at this time, and the second phase of the audit will take place as scheduled. The last time TrueCrypt was updated was two years ago - it's stable software that doesn't need constant tweaking, so the developers bowing out is not a problem. Chances are, someone will either fork TrueCrypt (version 3.1 of the TrueCrypt license seems to make this a legitimate possiblity) or create a replacement, possibly using the same container format. TrueCrypt is pretty much just as good as it was before this happened. Give it a couple of months before you start switching over to some other solution (which is likely to be less "battle-hardened" than the incredibly popular TrueCrypt anyway, and thus somewhat more likely to be insecure). There's no rush.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Alupis 12y ago
I agree. There was no rush to switch away 6 months ago. The latest version (besides the new decrypt-only release) was over a year ago. It's pretty solid from my use-case... and the audit should relax any fears (nothing obvious has been discovered yet). I think the "security concerns" expressed on the truecrypt page are more-or-less for future visitors to understand the project is not maintained anymore (albeit a poor way to go about expressing that)
loteck 12y ago
>which were clearly a joke There's a lot of information flying around so I may have missed something. Why is the official page, which states that there are security concerns, "clearly" a joke?
- cavilling_elite 12y ago
  I think it is the flippant manner in which they expose the security concern and recommend a product few would actually use.

tachion 12y ago

Has no one noticed there are alternative implementations already, like BSD-licensed tcplay implementation in DragonFlyBSD?

bmelton 12y ago
You do realize that is the very first recommended candidate in the article, right?
- tachion 12y ago
  I do, as you can see in my comment, but no one else (here in the comments) seems to notice that fact, that this particular implementation is fully open source alternative available since 2011...
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Apologies then. I don't think it's that people are unaware of alternatives at large, rather, that tcplay is a limited option at best. If you're using Linux, or DragonFly, or even Tails, then sure, it should work fine (which is likely why it's being considered as a replacement in Tails), but it doesn't have stated support for OS X, Windows, etc. TrueCrypt, on the other hand (despite whatever else ails it) is supported on all of the above.

bni 12y ago

I have been using cryptmount for years, and I can highly recommend it. It is a friendlier, more easy to use interface to the crypto functionality that exists in the linux kernel (dm-crypt)

CWuestefeld 12y ago

Wikipedia has a page comparing OTFE (on-the-fly-encryption) products [1]. It compares them on features such as operating system, Hidden containers,, Pre-boot authentication, Single sign-on, Custom authentication, Multiple keys, Passphrase strengthening, Hardware acceleration, TPM, Filesystems, Two-factor authentication [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_s...

eliteraspberrie 12y ago

I'll mention my theory of what happened with TrueCrypt here, because it's relevant to a search for alternatives. I believe TrueCrypt was started as a student project, and was no longer worth the effort to the developer(s). For a student or young developer interesting in cryptography, the reward is in the work itself, and in other people using the software. A decade later, though, with less free time, it's much less fun. At that point, a developer could either commercialize their work, or abandon it. TrueCrypt had very little chance of commercial success, since full-disk encryption comes with all new operating systems, so it's been abandoned. My conclusion is that only for-pay (open-source or not) FDE software can be a viable alternative to TrueCrypt, anything else will eventually be abandoned too. Consider that every project mentioned on this page is based on dm-crypt, part of the Linux kernel, which is supported financially by Intel, HP, and so on. That is a viable, long-term solution, and probably the only one. But if we want a diversity of cryptography software, we are going to have to start paying for it.

hippich 12y ago
This all could make sense if license for TC would be open source, like MIT, GPL or AGPL. If he simply do not want work on it - no problem, just give it to people who want to keep it running.
ultramancool 12y ago
I disagree. It's entirely possible to have a good free (as in beer and freedom) full disk encryption tool. In fact, we have several which are in quite wide use today. See: dm-crypt, loop-aes, luks, tcplay, encfs, ecryptfs, etc (okay, some of these aren't FDE tools in and of themselves, but parts of a system which can be used for FDE). Anyone who uses FDE on Linux is surely using one or two of these. It's really just a matter of someone being motivated enough to develop one for Windows. The entire reason for TrueCrypt's popularity over Bitlocker was that it was open source software. All this means is that one developer got sick and tired of it, which is completely understandable, but it can absolutely not be extrapolated to say that all have. DiskCryptor is currently looking like the next big viable alternative for an open source Windows FDE tool. I'm hoping we see some EFI support though, so I can finally get off BIOS mode. In my opinion, the best method is to gather a few skilled Windows driver developers to craft a driver based around existing technology, like FreeOTFE, which supports dm-crypt images. It'll be interesting to see what happens, I certainly think the demand and interest is high enough that we can get some good people on the case. Hopefully some who won't select a ridiculous license.

massysett 12y ago

None of these replace TrueCrypt. One thing that made TrueCrypt interesting was that you could use the same volume on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Items listed in the article are Linux only.

JamesTGibson 12y ago

The only good alternative I have found is documented on this thread: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/tutorial-windows-system-drive-encryption-using-diskcryptor-truecrypt-alternative.364446/ http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/tutorial-windows-syst... and there is a video that demonstrates it being used so people can see it in action before they try it.