On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:56:53AM +0200, Tommaso wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:53:45PM +0200, Ivan Stankovic wrote: > >> I'd like to start a discussion about plausible deniability for LUKS (see > >> http://code.google.com/p/cryptsetup/issues/detail?id=7). > > I think that plausible deniability would be a good thing, even if it is > somewhat difficult to rely upon (the xkcd strip explains this well > ihih), and maybe it goes beyond the scopes of LUKS. Nonetheless it would > be nice to have such an option. I agree, but "nice" and "worth the effort" are two different things. Andin addition, with LUKS is very likely not possible to go beyond what plain dm-crypt offers. Use that. > One thing I'd like to address however, regarding a possible future > implementation of truecrypt-style "hidden devices". If you'll ever plan > to do such a thing, remember that they are absolutely useless (except > maybe for USB sticks) until it will be not possible to use something > different from FAT16 for the host device. I tell you this because I had > many, many difficulties using a hidden device for my home, until at last > I had to abandon the idea. It is basically not possible to have a hidden volume or any hidden datya without raising suspicion. The entropy of the encryoted data cannopt be hidden and some seemingly random data will always be presend in the presence of a hidden volume. You can only claim that this data is not a hidden volume, and you can do the same already with a plain dm-crypt device. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
