On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:04:48 -0400, test532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Of course. For me (if I'd be in that business) just the presence of a >> system offering plausible deniability capabilities would be enough to >> simply assume they are used and thus continue pressing out keys of the >> suspect :) > >That is the beauty of a dm-crypt that supported even just the very elegant >external luks header feature that Rick mentioned. dm-crypt comes with >practically every linux. Therefor, having dm-crypt installed on one's system >means nothing. Potentially, even only with the feature that Rick came up with, >dm-crypt would be better at plausible deniability than TrueCrypt. This is >because having TrueCrypt installed on your system pretty much guarantees that >you have an encrypted volume. Having dm-crypt on your system means nothing. >Probably less than a percent of people with dm-crypt installed actually use >it, since at least my distro (SuSE) installs it by default. I'd agree with you there, though even if this wasn't the case, it still wouldn't mean anything. Owning a kitchen knife doesn't mean you're a serial killer. By extending his arguments, Argo seems to be arguing that having dm-crypt included with Linux distros means that *every* Linux user may be subject to being tortured to death, on the basis that they *must* have something to hide, and are just being "stubborn"/"enjoy the waterboarding"? It's a little like taking the view that our kitchen-knife owner is a serial killer - and the fact that he's still alive simply means we just haven't tortured him long enough to get "the truth"?! -- Sarah Dean FreeOTFE site: http://www.FreeOTFE.org/ Personal site: http://www.SDean12.org/ For information on SecureTrayUtil, Shredders, On-The-Fly Encryption (OTFE) systems, etc, see the URLs above. _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
