3 ms·

Alas, TrueCrypt was/is the only free solution that allows you to encrypt a USB flash drive (or create an encrytped container file on it) and thus exchange data

by krylon 12y ago

Alas, TrueCrypt was/is the only free solution that allows you to encrypt a USB flash drive (or create an encrytped container file on it) and thus exchange data between, a Mac, a Windows machine, and a Linux machine[1]. Maybe the number of people who need/want that is small compared to the number of people who want some form of whole disk encryption, but if you are one of those people, you are pretty much screwed without TrueCrypt. It would be relly nice if there was some common container format you could mount natively on these operating systems without the need for 3rd party software. I think I remember reading about LUKS supporting TrueCrypt's container format - but that, of course, only works on Linux. And frankly, I don't see Apple and Microsoft either supporting the TrueCrypt container format natively or getting together to define a new one. Plus, BitLocker is not available on Vista Business and Windows 7 Pro. So if you don't want to use Windows 8, again, you are kind of screwed. [1] At least it was/is the only software that I know of which allows you to do that. If there are alternatives, I would very much like to hear about them!

jessaustin 12y ago
...exchange data between, a Mac, a Windows machine, and a Linux machine. Just use PGP, probably the gpg [0] software. You can set it up so that each machine knows the others' public keys, or you can take a shortcut and copy the same private key to all your machines. Encrypt and decrypt as you like. This is "hacker" advice, however; gpg is not a consumer-oriented tool. You'll have to read some documentation and keep your wits about you. But that was true of TC as well, wasn't it? [0] https://www.gnupg.org/ https://www.gnupg.org/
- krylon 12y ago
  I am aware of PGP, and yes, one could do that, but... a) While I am not afraid of reading docuzmentation, TrueCrypt has always struck me as being really, really simple to use. b) The whole point of an encrypted filesystem is that cleartext data never hits the disk/flash drive/whatever. Of course you can prepare your data, encrypt it with gpg, transmit it in whatever way you choose, then decrypt it. But then you have on-disk plain text data, which in some cases is just not desirable. Just to be clear, I appreciate your suggestion, and in many cases it is entirely sufficient. But for me, right now, TrueCrypt hits kind of a sweet spot in terms of portablity, convenience and security.
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Agreed. My flash drives have a (portable) copy of TC on them and a container. I don't consider it secure (how could I, considering that I use it for shuttling things to/from machines I don't own), but it's a whole lot better than nothing. If there's a replacement for this use case I'd really like to know about it. Ditto: If you're using FDE for your system disk, it is desirable to know that in the event of the OS becoming unbootable that you can open it using any old OS. Especially in the case of laptops, where you won't have any guarantees about what other machines are available.
- krylon 12y ago
  What is "secure" depends on the scenario you have in mind. I keep some work-related on my flash drive encrypted, in case I loose the flash drive on the train or something like that. There was a case a couple of years back where somebody in the UK, I think, lost a flash drive with very sensitive data, like, medical records of prison inmates or something like that, on a train, unencrypted - the data I carry is far less sensitive, but this is precisely the scenario I want to be protected from.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    Yep. As I said - it's a whole lot better than nothing. The "insecure" thing is mainly to remind myself that it isn't the be-all and end-all.
mhogomchungu 12y ago
> I think I remember reading about LUKS supporting TrueCrypt's container format - but that, of course, only works on Linux. "LUKS" stands for "linux unified key setup" and it is an "on-disk format" and its reference implementation is found in cryptsetup[1] LUKS on-disk format is supported in windows through doxbox[2] cryptsetup also supports TrueCrypt,the on-disk format. people usually say "LUKS" when they mean cryptsetup as it makes no difference to them but i think its important to know the difference. [1] https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/Specification https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/Specification [2] https://github.com/t-d-k/doxbox https://github.com/t-d-k/doxbox
- krylon 12y ago
  Thank you very much for clearing that up!

by krylon 12y ago

jessaustin 12y ago

...exchange data between, a Mac, a Windows machine, and a Linux machine. Just use PGP, probably the gpg [0] software. You can set it up so that each machine knows the others' public keys, or you can take a shortcut and copy the same private key to all your machines. Encrypt and decrypt as you like. This is "hacker" advice, however; gpg is not a consumer-oriented tool. You'll have to read some documentation and keep your wits about you. But that was true of TC as well, wasn't it? [0] https://www.gnupg.org/ https://www.gnupg.org/

krylon 12y ago
I am aware of PGP, and yes, one could do that, but... a) While I am not afraid of reading docuzmentation, TrueCrypt has always struck me as being really, really simple to use. b) The whole point of an encrypted filesystem is that cleartext data never hits the disk/flash drive/whatever. Of course you can prepare your data, encrypt it with gpg, transmit it in whatever way you choose, then decrypt it. But then you have on-disk plain text data, which in some cases is just not desirable. Just to be clear, I appreciate your suggestion, and in many cases it is entirely sufficient. But for me, right now, TrueCrypt hits kind of a sweet spot in terms of portablity, convenience and security.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago

Agreed. My flash drives have a (portable) copy of TC on them and a container. I don't consider it secure (how could I, considering that I use it for shuttling things to/from machines I don't own), but it's a whole lot better than nothing. If there's a replacement for this use case I'd really like to know about it. Ditto: If you're using FDE for your system disk, it is desirable to know that in the event of the OS becoming unbootable that you can open it using any old OS. Especially in the case of laptops, where you won't have any guarantees about what other machines are available.

krylon 12y ago
What is "secure" depends on the scenario you have in mind. I keep some work-related on my flash drive encrypted, in case I loose the flash drive on the train or something like that. There was a case a couple of years back where somebody in the UK, I think, lost a flash drive with very sensitive data, like, medical records of prison inmates or something like that, on a train, unencrypted - the data I carry is far less sensitive, but this is precisely the scenario I want to be protected from.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Yep. As I said - it's a whole lot better than nothing. The "insecure" thing is mainly to remind myself that it isn't the be-all and end-all.

mhogomchungu 12y ago

> I think I remember reading about LUKS supporting TrueCrypt's container format - but that, of course, only works on Linux. "LUKS" stands for "linux unified key setup" and it is an "on-disk format" and its reference implementation is found in cryptsetup[1] LUKS on-disk format is supported in windows through doxbox[2] cryptsetup also supports TrueCrypt,the on-disk format. people usually say "LUKS" when they mean cryptsetup as it makes no difference to them but i think its important to know the difference. [1] https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/Specification https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/Specification [2] https://github.com/t-d-k/doxbox https://github.com/t-d-k/doxbox

krylon 12y ago
Thank you very much for clearing that up!