So TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt?
Truecrypt is deprecated.
Use Bitlocker, as they are the ones who recommended it. It is safe.
>>51486753
Will do NSA.
dm-crypt+LUKS (can even extend with 2FA)
>>51486753
>Bitlocker
Bitlocker is a proprietary cryptographic FDE implementation by M$. We don't have access to the source code, so you blindly trust the corporation to do their crypto right. Bitlocker (among others) even had some vulnerabilities, for example the evil maid attack as Joanna Rutkowska found out: (can't share link, for some reason 4chan thinks it's spam... :/ Just look it up with 'Joanna Rutkowska evil maid attack')
This is called security through obscurity, and it's very dangerous as the security of a cryptographic system should not be guaranteed by not disclosing how it works. Everything about the system should be publicly known, except for the secret key you use, to validate the security and soundness of the system. I'd recommend reading up on Auguste Kerckhoffs' Principle or Claude Shannon's Maxim why this is paramount for all cryptography.
>>51486753
hahaha you made my day
>>51486734
Use xor encryption you faggot, its super easy to implement and not secure enough for anyone to actually consider using, thus making it secure because no one makes tools to decipher it
>>51487022
I did, my router firmware 'encrypted' it's backup using a simple XOR with a static value (as opposed to using it with an OTP). It's broken, useless and *not* a valid encryption technique. Moreover, you know all this, so stop shit posting.
>>51486734
True
>>51486734
Is encryption a game to you? OP
>>51486734
Truecrypt 7.1a
>>51487138
Bits are nothing but roaches.
>>51487138
You are a big public key
>>51486734
truecrypt is dead
>>51486734
neither, one is old, the other is developed by nsa, if you want encryption linux is your best bet
How do you move a file into a encrypted container safely?
For example, if you're moving a file, wouldn't that just be copying the file to the container and just deleting the listing of the file from it's previous location.
Meaning that someone could just recover the unindexed file without having to even worry about the encrypted version of the file?
>>51487840
You shred the file in the original location.
>>51486734
Dm-crypt
>>51487878
So you're saying it is better to copy over the file and shred the original, instead of moving the file?
>>51487888
Yes.
>>51486734
hontocrypt
>>51486734
I save my backups in the cloud encrypted by VeraCrypt. Hope google can't decipher it
>>51487893
Alright cheers
Is there no encryption sites left to use :(
>>51486805
>evil maid attack
This is not an inherent flaw of any encryption tool though.
>>51487923
Not inherent, but an implementation flaw nonetheless.
>>51488118
Evil maid relies on physical access. So unless you can implement code against physical access, it's not an implementation flaw.
>>51488155
but isn't the point of disk encrypt to prevent access to data when physically present? its the dumbest flaw ever.
>>51488155
Physical or remote access is not a discriminating factor to determine whether or not something is an implementation flaw. It should not be possible to have your password be keylogged and picked up later. If it's leveraged using malicious code while unlocking the drive it's an implementation flaw that should be harnessed against.
>>51488230
How exactly, genius?
>>51488230
So I sneak in and plug in a usb keylogger, and it's the developer's fault, clearly.
>>51488404
I'm not writing a fix now, genius.
>>51486734
truecrypt
can't trust veracrypt
>>51488420
A hardware keylogger is not using malicious code which is executed while unlocking, like I clearly mentioned should be the case to be pertinent to the implementation.
>>51488424
>Back to the armchair you go
>>51488457
>Not refuted
fuck off pedo, just use floppy disks and zippo drives to stores your sick shit and bury it in the ground, no one here cares about this shit, so suck my dick now.
>>51488492
>there was nothing to refute
>evidence > opinion
>>51488535
OP asked a valid question, stupid git.
>>51488578
There was, you seem to be of the opinion physical access means it's not an implementation flaw. I refuted that but somehow you don't accept that unless I proof it to you. That's an ad ignorantiam and it's not a valid argument.
>>51488638
>It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
>There is a fix
>"I'm not working on it"
>it's absolutely impossible to unlock this door over the internet
>but anyone with physical access can turn the handle
>i-it's not a flaw!
truecrypt unless that security audit actually throws up a major red flag
>>51488673
Anon, this getting too silly. I'm not a TrueCrypt developer and you cannot expect a random guy on 4chan to write a fix in order to refute your argument.
>>51488676
>Front door can't be opened from the internet
>Lock needs to be picked in person
>THOSE FUCKING WEB DEVELOPERS
>>51488705
The only evidence for your assertion is that it exists. So sure, if you can't prove that it does, even theoretically, and can't provide a solution, and don't want to try, and you have no means of showing how your proposition stands up
But sure, we'll trust you on that one.
>yellow card for shitposting
dm-crypt with LUKS all day erry day
>>51488720
I'm not shit posting, you don't even believe so. All I'm saying is it's not fair to ask what you want.
