5 ms·

Can you explain this quote from you and your involvement in the TrueCrypt audit? "By encouraging people to rely on tools like Truecrypt, you are, in a very sma

Can you explain this quote from you and your involvement in the TrueCrypt audit? "By encouraging people to rely on tools like Truecrypt, you are, in a very small but real way, endangering them." [0] It just seems like you supporting the audit (and therefore supporting TrueCrypt) is at direct odds with what you said an hour ago. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126

click170 12y ago
Though I'm no tptacek, I think the reasoning here is that even though TrueCrypt is undergoing an audit, it's not under active development and unfortunately due to the licensing, any patches produced by the community could be on uncertain footing legally.
- diminoten 12y ago
  I would love for Thomas to write an article on his blog about the difference between thinking something is dangerous to support, and then supporting a security audit of that same thing.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    It's dangerous to encourage truecrypt to the exclusion of other options. It's dangerous to use truecrypt in inappropriate situations. At the same time it's good to make sure truecrypt is the best it can be at what it does, even if that category is fundamentally limited. To get more explicit, it's the difference between "using" truecrypt and "relying" on truecrypt. You want to give people an accurate picture of their options and the tradeoffs. "relying" on truecrypt is dangerous.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Yes. Exactly this. Also: your guess is as good as mine as to why this nuance was worth discussing.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      This is just sensationalism. "<Popular product> shouldn't be relied on!" What he doesn't say is exactly what you just said, that it works for the majority of use cases. It all hinges on this liberal interpretation of the word "rely". "Top 10 things your cryptographer doesn't want you to know!" It's marketing, and it's annoying. TrueCrypt is just fine for the majority use case, and Thomas knows that, but that doesn't get attention. Saying bombastic things like, "Don't use TrueCrypt!" gets attention. So I gave him some attention. Hope that's what he wanted.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        You're the one making a big deal out of a statement as simple as "use something better if possible", trying to turn it into a contradiction so he can be "wrong". Use cases where the security fails are a huge red flag. Mentioning red flags is not sensationalism.
        diminoten 12y ago
        That's not what he said, he said it's actively harmful to promote the use of TrueCrypt. That's a world of difference from "use something better if possible".
chimeracoder 12y ago
It's pretty easy to explain - and in fact, you got your answer[0] > Block-level encryption is a terrible, terrible approach for many reasons (which 'tptacek has referenced a million times). However, Truecrypt is the best such implementation, and it's a required approach in certain cases. You should be doing crypto at the application/filesystem level; if you can't, use Truecrypt. This isn't contradictory advice. The only reason this even seems remotely contradictory is because you've taken Thomas's statement completely out of context (perhaps because it's nested about 50 lines in from the top-level comment that even provided the context in the first place). Alternatively, it's only contradictory if you take a black-and-white, all-or-nothing interpretation of what Thomas says... which is quite ironic, because one of his key criticisms of Truecrypt is that it is all-or-nothing, as stated in the very same post that you quote[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071492 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126
- diminoten 12y ago
  Thomas changed his comments about 50 times between when we were replying to one another and now, so in all likelihood what I've written makes no sense in relation to what he's written anymore. That said, there is a very serious contradiction between supporting the audit of software, and thinking that the support of said software is actively harmful. If it's actively harmful, Thomas shouldn't support its use, period. He should either resign entirely from all activity related to TrueCrypt, or amend his comment to reflect what he actually thinks.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    edit: I wrote something unproductive here
    - 4oh9do 12y ago
      As a casual user, I would like to know how I am endangering users by encouraging them to use TrueCrypt? And what should I be encouraging them to use instead?

click170 12y ago

Though I'm no tptacek, I think the reasoning here is that even though TrueCrypt is undergoing an audit, it's not under active development and unfortunately due to the licensing, any patches produced by the community could be on uncertain footing legally.

diminoten 12y ago
I would love for Thomas to write an article on his blog about the difference between thinking something is dangerous to support, and then supporting a security audit of that same thing.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  It's dangerous to encourage truecrypt to the exclusion of other options. It's dangerous to use truecrypt in inappropriate situations. At the same time it's good to make sure truecrypt is the best it can be at what it does, even if that category is fundamentally limited. To get more explicit, it's the difference between "using" truecrypt and "relying" on truecrypt. You want to give people an accurate picture of their options and the tradeoffs. "relying" on truecrypt is dangerous.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Yes. Exactly this. Also: your guess is as good as mine as to why this nuance was worth discussing.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    This is just sensationalism. "<Popular product> shouldn't be relied on!" What he doesn't say is exactly what you just said, that it works for the majority of use cases. It all hinges on this liberal interpretation of the word "rely". "Top 10 things your cryptographer doesn't want you to know!" It's marketing, and it's annoying. TrueCrypt is just fine for the majority use case, and Thomas knows that, but that doesn't get attention. Saying bombastic things like, "Don't use TrueCrypt!" gets attention. So I gave him some attention. Hope that's what he wanted.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      You're the one making a big deal out of a statement as simple as "use something better if possible", trying to turn it into a contradiction so he can be "wrong". Use cases where the security fails are a huge red flag. Mentioning red flags is not sensationalism.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        That's not what he said, he said it's actively harmful to promote the use of TrueCrypt. That's a world of difference from "use something better if possible".

chimeracoder 12y ago

It's pretty easy to explain - and in fact, you got your answer[0] > Block-level encryption is a terrible, terrible approach for many reasons (which 'tptacek has referenced a million times). However, Truecrypt is the best such implementation, and it's a required approach in certain cases. You should be doing crypto at the application/filesystem level; if you can't, use Truecrypt. This isn't contradictory advice. The only reason this even seems remotely contradictory is because you've taken Thomas's statement completely out of context (perhaps because it's nested about 50 lines in from the top-level comment that even provided the context in the first place). Alternatively, it's only contradictory if you take a black-and-white, all-or-nothing interpretation of what Thomas says... which is quite ironic, because one of his key criticisms of Truecrypt is that it is all-or-nothing, as stated in the very same post that you quote[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071492 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9071126

diminoten 12y ago
Thomas changed his comments about 50 times between when we were replying to one another and now, so in all likelihood what I've written makes no sense in relation to what he's written anymore. That said, there is a very serious contradiction between supporting the audit of software, and thinking that the support of said software is actively harmful. If it's actively harmful, Thomas shouldn't support its use, period. He should either resign entirely from all activity related to TrueCrypt, or amend his comment to reflect what he actually thinks.
- tptacek 12y ago
  edit: I wrote something unproductive here
  - 4oh9do 12y ago
    As a casual user, I would like to know how I am endangering users by encouraging them to use TrueCrypt? And what should I be encouraging them to use instead?