On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, .. ink .. <mhogomchungu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Franz <169101@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes I had already seen this zulucrypt and also tomb http://www.dyne.org/software/tomb/ that seems even more developed that zulucrypt. But for such a critical task I am willing to trust packages like cryptsetup and dm-crypt that are signed, incorporated into main distributions, and certainly checked by many people. But I am unwilling to trust something posted somewhere in internet, unsigned and unchecked.
Otherwise better to stay with Truecrypt a little more waiting for things to change.In any case many thanks to all for the kind helpBestFranzYour statement carries with it a logical inconsistece since you use TrueCrypt, a product that is developed in secrecy,by unknown developers who seem to take extra effort to hide themselves for no obvious reasons who
also seem to just put link to a source code dump online once in a while,unchecked and unverified.
Why not switching to LUKS since you already seen to trust cryptsetup?
what advantages does TrueCrypt volumes have in your use case that makes
you want to stick with its encrypted format?
well you are certainly totally right unfortunately. But truecrypt is at least still open source and the installation file is signed. Also, it is a very well known product so I suppose that many people audited the source code and no big problem ever surfaced. Less important, but still... it is already installed and working fine in a VM of my computer.
Switching to LUCKS would be very interesting. Qubes already uses LUCKS to encrypt my disk so every time I start my computer need to put a password just to uncrypt it. But can LUCKS work on a file container that I can copy and move? I investigated it time ago and found no way to do it. Is there a way to do that? Really that would be the solution.
Best
Franz
_______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
