Quantcast
Channel: VeraCrypt
Viewing all 7620 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Commented Unassigned: Problem access to hard disk [345]

January 13, 2016, 4:06 pm
$
0
0
Hi i have encrypted Partition0 on my hard disk,
after, in disk managment, i clicked MBR, and now i can't mount the partition....
I know the password (before it was in system favorite volumes and so it was mounted when Windows starts)
How i can remount it?
HELP ME PLEASE :(

Comments: It doesn`t work :(.... i will format it!
↧
Search

New Post: Microsoft Update fails in Windows 10

January 13, 2016, 4:06 pm
$
0
0
Currently on Windows 10 build 10240. Have veracrypt 1.16 installed with C: encrypted
and D, E whole drive encrypted too.

Windows update fails to update windows to version 1511, 10586. I've downloaded the ISO file from Microsoft techbench site https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/software-download/techbench and mounted it and run setup.exe but I feel a bit nervous about installing it. Will Windows overwrite the boot partiion and screw everything up? Has anyone done this update with veracrypt installed?
↧
↧

New Post: Microsoft Update fails in Windows 10

January 13, 2016, 7:02 pm
$
0
0
https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/workitem/290
Microsoft is doing something nasty in the update installer. VeraCrypt driver is working as expected but this installer clearly blocks it during the process of updating the system. By doing this, Microsoft is breaking FDE software other than Bitlocker and Microsoft partners ones.

What is the best way to report this to Microsoft? Obviously, on VeraCrypt, we are lacking man power to investigate further such deep kernel blocking by the update installer.
↧

New Post: Encryption Algorithm and Hash Algorithm

January 14, 2016, 1:53 am
$
0
0
**brett_ wrote:**
Hello, you may have some delusion of what security means, so I suggest reading Kerckhoffs's principle. What cipher you have used, key-derivative hash selections, and/or iteration count is NOT security and should NEVER BE considered security. Assume your attacker knows everything you have done to encrypt your data except the key. I have used AES to secure my HDD, with a PIM of 5, and a hash of SHA-256. Knowing this you are no closer to decrypting my HDD than had I told you nothing. This is mathematically proven.
this is true, but in a very, very sterile form... in real life, even putting my laptop under the mattress instead of leaving it on the table, is an added security :)
↧

New Post: Encryption Algorithm and Hash Algorithm

January 14, 2016, 2:10 am
$
0
0
Alex,

I agree with you. You and I come from the same camp. The less they know the better the security.

I have a gun safe at home and for the longest if time, I refused to let anyone know that I have one. If you can't find it, how are you going to break into it? The safe itself is a form of protection but is it 100% protection? NO! Someone who knows the dimension can formulate a plan of either carry it out or plasma cut it open. A 300lb safe vs a 1000lb safe caring down a flight of stair? When you can introduce a sense of doubt and take away their ability to formulate, that is an added layer of protection. It may not be 100% guarantee but it still an added layer of protection.

I have a friend who leaves his gun safe in the wide opening. He told me no one will be able to open it. Sure about that?
↧
↧

New Post: Encryption Algorithm and Hash Algorithm

January 14, 2016, 3:31 am
$
0
0
WRVeraCrypt, you are absolutely right. From brett's position, he also has a point. In the encryption field, when a product is brought to the market, it is of course so that one should not count on keeping the encryption system secret, as it will, soon or later, be revealed...... So he is right that it is not the real security... In real life however, when it comes to everyone's particular case, things are very different.....

A few examples to backup my point: why did the Germans during WW2 kept their enigma machine so secret? Why would they do the impossible to prevent any of these machines fall in enemy's hands? They could have just reshuffle the rotors and initialize the machine to its factory state and problem solved, right? Wrong... they simply didnt want the machine's internals to be known.... and that is added security..... Or why are nowadays so many classified encryption algorithms (mainly by the military)? Why they just dont publish everything so the public can have a look? Because thats also an added security.....
↧

New Post: VeraCrypt Upgrade

January 14, 2016, 5:44 am
$
0
0
Hi,

Thank you so much for your help, it worked out really well. I am taking this as a lesson learned that when i upgrade VeraCrypt I will be sure to enable bootloader messages then switch them off later once I know what is happening.

Once again I greatly appreciate your help it saved me a lot of time setting up a Windows virtual machine then installing VeraCrypt 1.0f-2, encrypting the drive, upgrading to 1.16 and seeing what was going on.

Thanks and have a great day.
↧

Commented Feature: Support UEFI boot mode. [33]

January 14, 2016, 7:46 am
$
0
0
Add support UEFI boot mode.
Comments: This is pretty much a duplicate issue of this as they are intertwined. https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/workitem/2
↧
Search

Commented Feature: GPT System Partition Encryption is not available [2]

January 14, 2016, 7:52 am
$
0
0
GPT System Partitions cannot be encrypted because the bootloader does not support GPT Partition Table
Comments: It looks like there are several open source boot loaders that can boot from GPT.. maybe something could be gleaned from them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_boot_loaders Also I understand how hard this is, but some boards are shipping now without legacy support and most installations of Windows are now coming preconfigured as UEFI which means GPT so this feature is becoming more and more urgent. I would GLADLY pay for this as a pro feature, $50 or so and I'm sure many others would as well. This is the top voted issue here, and the second top voted issue (UEFI support, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_boot_loaders) is essentially the same issue. If the bootloader is to big to fit in the space it uses now, even if VC required a separate partition for itself as Windows does with its 100MB partition, that would be acceptable. Until then this appears to be a possible solution (it does support UEFI) but I havent fully evaluated it. Bruce Schneier mentioned it. http://www.jetico.com/products/personal-privacy/bestcrypt-volume-encryption/ I would prefer VC though as I would have to convert a lot of drives over to this and I dont know if it has all the other features VC has.
↧
↧

Created Unassigned: Cropped buttons [353]

January 14, 2016, 9:13 am
$
0
0
VeraCrypt 1.16 x64, lang: Russian. Cropped buttons at the bottom. Screenshot attached.
↧

Edited Unassigned: Cropped buttons [353]

January 14, 2016, 9:15 am
$
0
0
VeraCrypt 1.16 x64, lang: Russian. Windows 10. Cropped buttons at the bottom. Screenshot attached.
↧

New Post: Security audit

January 14, 2016, 11:24 am
$
0
0
idrassi wrote:
Hi all,

I'm currently finalizing the dynamic mode feature: many users a waiting for this feature since it will enable specifying custom iterations count when using long password (there will be always a minimal value for the iterations to enable a minimal security margin).

Also, the next feature is the boot loader tampering detection: this is a countermeasure that will enable detection of Evil Maid attacks.

Moreover, if I have enough time, I will change Whirlpool implementation to more optimized one because the current one has bad performance.

In the current 1.11-BETA available on Sourceforge, I already implemented the decryption on non-system partitions which was a popular feature.

If everything goes as planned, the next release should be around beginning of July and it should contain all the features I mentioned above. This version should be the basis of any future audit.
Hello Mounir,

Greeting from Canada and wish you a Happy New Year.
I guess that the release 1.17 Beta released at the beginning of the year contains more optimized Whirlpool implementation that you talked about above . Is that correct?
As a newbie my question is - once the new release of Veracrypt is available, are we supposed to decrypt the previously encrypted volumes and
re - encrypt using the new version or we just need to use the new version to mount the volume ?

Secondly I wanted to have an update on the status of audit? Is it happening somewhere near future or we are not there yet? Money issues?

Thanks
↧

New Post: Operation failed due to one or more of the following. This despite the fact my password is correct.

January 14, 2016, 1:48 pm
$
0
0
I have the same problems. I use Windows 7 and MAC OS X 10.11.2. Veracrypt volumes mounted on external USB drives (2nd drive for backup). Each drive splitted for 2 partitions. one of partition occupied by Veracrypt volume.
I do not used veracrypt just for two weeks for holidays.
Today I have the same problems.
Of course I carefully check for password, PIM, hash (autodetect), I tried to restore volume header (menu "Tools").

any ideas?
↧
↧

Commented Unassigned: Long delay in mounting volume before password prompt [268]

January 14, 2016, 2:42 pm
$
0
0
When I try to mount a volume in the VeraCrypt UI it first pops up the "Please wait... This process may take a long time dialog" before asking me for the password. I assume it's trying to mount the volume using a cached password. I know this is inherited from TrueCrypt, but in TrueCrypt there was no noticeable delay. In VeraCrypt the delay is very noticeable and very annoying. Can it show the mount dialog immediately and then only try cached passwords if the user clicks OK, leaving the password field blank? I think the annoyance of having to click an extra button would be much less than the annoyance of this delay.
Comments: I agree, that's very likely the reason.
↧

Commented Unassigned: Make default PIM configurable [281]

January 14, 2016, 2:44 pm
$
0
0
VeraCrypt's default PIM results in a very long wait when a password is mis-typed - about 50-60 seconds. This is unacceptably slow. I've set my PIM to a lower value, but sometimes the default is still used, eg. if when auto-mounting using cached passwords or I neglect to enter a PIM. Please make the default PIM value configurable. It should not be restricted based on the length of the password, either. I will decide for myself what is secure enough for me.
Comments: Agree, not having to enter a PIM at boot would be nice.
↧
Search

New Post: Changing PIM bug

January 15, 2016, 1:37 am
↧

New Post: VeraCrypt Upgrade

January 15, 2016, 5:24 am
$
0
0
@ TheQuiet101

I'm glad I could help :)
↧
↧

Commented Unassigned: A "security Leak". [348]

January 15, 2016, 5:33 am
$
0
0
Veracrypt 1.17 beta remember the location (path) and the name of the last used keyfile. Now, every person that uses my computer knows the last keyfile I used. The Veracrypt 1.16 does not remember that and always takes the user to the home folder. An additional suggestion: like the PIM, there should be an option for caching the HMAC for faster mount.
Comments: 1. Don't let other users use your account, install VeraCrypt for yourself only. 2. Don't use keyfiles!!! 3. Cache nothing, easier faster access means lowering security.
↧

New Post: Veracrypt with online cloud storage

January 15, 2016, 6:07 am
$
0
0
Why on earth would you want to use he internet to share your encrypted data when you can just create a local peer to peer network? unless you both live in different places and want to share, and in that case your going down a different path, with many different types of data leaks and attacks, and once your data leaves your computer it is now in the hands of a cloud based company (providing it gets there) and its not uncommon for that data to be accessed without your consent or for it to be deleted by attackers.

All local data is encrypted, but what use is that if a public hosted server has encrypted copies and it gets attacked through an exploit? heartbleed anyone? the confidentiality is gone.
↧

New Post: Veracrypt with online cloud storage

January 15, 2016, 6:57 am
$
0
0
We are not always in the same place, and when we are, it's often the case that only one computer is left on.

Sync.com claim - and it's true that this has to be taken at face value - that files are encrypted/decrypted on the users computers and that they never have the passwords for that encryption. Their claim (as I linked in my 2nd post) is:

"Zero-knowledge" means we absolutely cannot access the encrypted data stored on our servers. Your data is completely safeguarded from unauthorized access, which is the only way you can completely trust the cloud.

You wrote: what use is that if a public hosted server has encrypted copies and it gets attacked but did you mean unencrypted copies?

Sync.com again (about 1/2 way down the page):
2048 bit RSA, 256 bit AES, SSL and TLS encryption
Two-factor authentication
Deletion recovery and file version history
Remote wipe and remote device lockout
Share controls, permissions and user administration

Evidently the encryption is only as good as the passwords: but then I choose them. Sync.com offer deletion recovery.

As I said to randomnameforcode, the integrity of sync.com has to be taken on trust, but since they've been around for a couple of years and with a claimed 100,000 customers as of Sep 2015, any problems will soon come to attention.
↧
Viewing all 7620 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>