Truecrypt may be compromised

[planetdoc]

those who visit truecrypt's sourceforge page will get this warning

WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is Not Secure As it may contain unfixed security issues

A FOSS project shutters itself and, rather than linking to a fork or posting tarballs of a few versions' worth of source, recommends commercial alternatives. Suspicious

They Recommend to migrate to Bitlocker....an encryption platform by Microsoft that the feds asked for a backdoor. Suspicous.

Some users believe the program was compromised due to a national security letter, or it may be a break-in. Many things don't add up, including the fact that Truecrypt re-issued all of its keys only 4 hours before releasing the new version, 7.2. On top of this - they say they have stopped development because WinXP support has ended... which doesn't add up at all. Even those who audited truecrypt found out suddenly today about the changes and shutdown of the trucrypt project.

At this point it is not recommended to use the new version 7.2

[DaveNull]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

2. Although software that they host is open source, most people do not check MD5 checksum's of the software that they download, few check that the available executable matches one compiled independently, and few have the capability to audit the millions of lines of code of each version.

If you're using TrueCrypt you'd better.

This sure does seem odd. I've advised my team to stick with their existing versions and to wait until the dust settles.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaveNull

If you're using TrueCrypt you'd better.

This sure does seem odd. I've advised my team to stick with their existing versions and to wait until the dust settles.

If you're using Open Source software of any kind, you should be checking MD5 checksums.

It's not unique to security software like TrueCrypt.

MD5 hashing offers integrity "peace of mind" just beyond the security implication, for example downloading router firmware. A corrupted firmware image = a bricked router. If you're not verifying the checksum, you're just asking for trouble.

[DaveNull]

I'm not always on Windows, but when I am I really like the HashCheck Shell Extension.

[htismaqe]

I don't ever use Windows anymore but when I did I used winMd5Sum Portable.

[planetdoc]

MD5 checksum is great to verify an already compiled executable. Its not as great for verifying code that you compile yourself, since that will vary depending on the hardware and software used to compile. That has been a longstanding problem with Truecrypt until recently (source doesnt perfectly match pre-compiled executable).

Those who argue that people should simply audit the source themselves to verify authenticity are either ignorant or being obtuse. Auditing Cryptographic software (and its implementation) is just too complex for a single user.

An example of this is the underhanded C contest whose point is to get malicous code past a rigorous inspection.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by KC native

The NSA can break any encryption that they want. It doesn't matter what you use.

lol, nope.

[scorpio]

Some of the the armchair bullshit in this thread is hilarious.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

MD5 checksum is great to verify an already compiled executable. Its not as great for verifying code that you compile yourself, since that will vary depending on the hardware and software used to compile. That has been a longstanding problem with Truecrypt until recently (source doesnt perfectly match pre-compiled executable).

Those who argue that people should simply audit the source themselves to verify authenticity are either ignorant or being obtuse. Auditing Cryptographic software (and its implementation) is just too complex for a single user.

An example of this is the underhanded C contest whose point is to get malicous code past a rigorous inspection.

Then don't use open source software.

You're stance on this, and multiple threads, seems to border on total paranoia rather than anything even remotely practical.

What would your proposed solution be?

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Then don't use open source software.

With open source software at least people have the opportunity to audit code which one does not have with closed source software. Using closed source software requires trust.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're stance on this, and multiple threads, seems to border on total paranoia rather than anything even remotely practical.

please clarify.

My stance on Truecrypt is that it may be compromised. That is not paranoia.

What you suggest (that people should independantly audit code for each version) is not practical.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What would your proposed solution be?

proposed solution to truecrypt possibly being compromised?

The Audit of truecrypt has already been paid for, and stage 1 has been completed. Its worthwhile to see what vulnerabilities are found after a complete audit of version 7.1a.

Auditers need to implement a warrant canary in case they receive a NSL to prevent them from disclosing vulnerabilities in 7.1a.

If Truecrypt is found to be vulnerable, than the project should be forked and patched. Till more information is known, users should investigate alternatives.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

With open source software at least people have the opportunity to audit code which one does not have with closed source software. Using closed source software requires trust.

So then what's your point? This whole conversation has essentially been you suggesting that there's no way to truly secure the open source software space.

My counter to that was that it's inherently better than closed-source software because it's open to peer review.

Now you're parroting precisely what I said previously.

Originally Posted by planetdoc

My stance on Truecrypt is that it may be compromised. That is not paranoia.

What you suggest (that people should independantly audit code for each version) is not practical.

Then what is practical? You have already demonstrated a lack of trust in closed-source software, particularly encryption solutions.

Other than "stop using TrueCrypt" what would be your suggestion for people that need that functionality?

Originally Posted by planetdoc

proposed solution to truecrypt possibly being compromised?

The Audit of truecrypt has already been paid for, and stage 1 has been completed. Its worthwhile to see what vulnerabilities are found after a complete audit of version 7.1a.

Auditers need to implement a warrant canary in case they receive a NSL to prevent them from disclosing vulnerabilities in 7.1a.

If Truecrypt is found to be vulnerable, than the project should be forked and patched. Till more information is known, users should investigate alternatives.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[DaveNull]

Truecrypt is such a good standard that shifting will be very painful.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaveNull

Truecrypt is such a good standard that shifting will be very painful.

Yeah, it's one of those pieces of software that is kind of hard to just replace with something else...

[DaveNull]

It's also rolled into some of the tactical collection drives that I use.

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So then what's your point?

Beware, truecrypt may be compromised. See the OP.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

This whole conversation has essentially been you suggesting that there's no way to truly secure the open source software space.

than you are not paying attention. I am saying that its impractical for an individual to audit code. It requires the watchful eyes of a community.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

My counter to that was that it's inherently better than closed-source software because it's open to peer review.

Now you're parroting precisely what I said previously.

thats not what you said. you said people should look at md5 checksum and audit code themselves....and not doing that is lazy. thats obtuse.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Then what is practical?

Other than "stop using TrueCrypt" what would be your suggestion for people that need that functionality?

1. For those who are using truecrypt currently, than do not migrate to version 7.2 and remain on 7.1a until more information is known.

2. understand your threat level. truecrypt is likely still secure enough for those who are not being pursued by a nation state. Those using truecrypt should always fully shutdown their computer and not use suspended animation such as hibernate. Use best security practices.

3. Consider migrating to a Linux variant OS if one has not already done so.

4. Any highly sensitive data should be air-gapped, and likely on read only media (run from a live cd).

[planetdoc]

http://truecrypt.ch/
https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm