On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 08:36:02PM +0200, Arno Wagner wrote: > > 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. ... but not with LUKS. And this is what I'm looking for: having all the benefits and convenience of LUKS but without the revealing signature. Making sure that other components of the system do well with respect to deniability is, of course, the user's problem. -- Ivan Stankovic, pokemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"; _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
