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

New Post: 1.18 Beta Release - Feedback or Issues

February 19, 2016, 6:02 pm
↧
Search

Commented Unassigned: Created 'drive' lost [393]

February 19, 2016, 6:24 pm
$
0
0
After installing VeraCrypt (apparently successfully) I had a need to re-boot my PC after cleaning out some old programs unneeded any longer, the 'Drive' that was used to install "My Volume" has disappeared.

Computer no longer sees it or else it is gone.

The VeraCrypt program is still installed.

How can I find it and/or replace it?

Thank you.
Comments: Hello, Please clarify the issue. Did you install VeraCrypt and encrypt the volume with VeraCrypt or merely install VeraCrypt software?
↧
↧

New Post: How to install Fedora on Veracrypt

February 19, 2016, 6:57 pm
$
0
0
Thank you, it works! I finally chose Debian 8.3 with your solution. A big thank you!
↧

New Post: Integration in debian-repository?

February 19, 2016, 7:46 pm
↧

New Post: 2 requests: 1 super easy (10s for you to do), 1 a lot more difficult.

February 19, 2016, 10:26 pm
$
0
0
Easy: When I press F5 to unmask my password in the bootloader, I can type in my password and see it. This makes it easy to correct mistakes I might make when my fat fingers press 2 keys at once. But after I press [Enter] the password should be masked out rather than stay on my screen.

Hard: One of the most popular attacks against TC (and now VC) and FDE in general is an online attack where a hardware device is plugged into a PCI/eSATA/Firewire port on the computer to directly access the system memory. The device then dumps the entire contents of RAM to some external storage. Then some dude finds the master key in the memory and that's the end of your protection. A method that might prevent this from happening is to extremely-frequently move the location of the key + key schedule in memory (by large distances) and only maintain a single pointer to it (or a single pointer to a small list of pointers). If the key itself was erased after the key schedule was created, and the key schedule was broken into pieces and separated in RAM by very large distances, moved frequently, then any attempt to dump RAM would fail. By the time the dumper or searcher got to upper RAM addresses all of the data would have changed. A complete dump would not contain all of the key schedule data. This would require you to modify the source of all 3 encryption algorithms and the filter driver itself to split up the key schedules. BUT you would also be the first piece of cryptography software to prevent this popular attack!

Thoughts?
↧
↧

New Post: 2 requests: 1 super easy (10s for you to do), 1 a lot more difficult.

February 20, 2016, 8:19 am
$
0
0
FYI, version 1.17 implements masking the bootloader password.
Bootloader: Protect password/PIM length by filling the fields to maximum length with '*' after ENTER
↧

New Post: mounting volume comtainer from cmdline analog TrueCrypt does not work

February 20, 2016, 10:27 am
$
0
0
With TrueCrypt I opened in the past an existing TC container from command line with the following command:

"D:\security\crypt\TrueCrypt\TrueCrypt" /v "D:\private\Docs\prv.tc" /lY /a /q /m rm /m ts

Now I wanted to try it out with VeraCrypt and entered:

"D:\security\crypt\VeraCrypt\VeraCrypt" /tc /v "D:\private\Docs\prv.tc" /lY /a /q /m rm /m ts

However I am getting on 64bit Win 7 an error popup:

"Error while parsing command line"

So whats wrong? Even if I omit the /tc parameter I get the same error.

Peter
↧

New Post: mounting volume comtainer from cmdline analog TrueCrypt does not work

February 20, 2016, 10:46 am
↧
Search

Created Unassigned: VeraCrypt system partition can only be opened at first attempt. [395]

February 20, 2016, 12:11 pm
$
0
0
Hello, I have two computers (one laptop, one desktop) running Windows 10 Pro encrypted with VeraCrypt 1.16 (and also Linux with LUKS FDE, so VeraCrypt loader is first thing that boots and then I can fall back to grub pressing escape to boot into Linux).

VeraCrypt has been working flawlessly so far on both computers, but after upgrading VeraCrypt on Windows to version 1.17, I have found that __on the laptop__ the Windows encrypted system partition can only be opened at boot time given that the correct password+PIM combination is provided __at the first attempt__ to the VeraCrypt loader. If the first attempt fails, successive attempts will always fail regardless of the password+PIM being correct, and the only way to get in is to restart the laptop and get it right on the first attempt.

I have tried changing the password+PIM many times but the problem persists.

Oddly, in spite of having an identical partition layout on both computers, this behavior is only showing in the laptop, while the desktop computer is working just fine as always.

Both computers run on 64-bit Intel CPUs (desktop with AES-NI, laptop without) and have the x64 version of VeraCrypt installed. Both of them run Windows 10 upgraded from Windows 7 a few months ago (before being encrypted with VeraCrypt) and use VeraCrypt's Windows system encryption with the same parameter choices for encryption and PIM.


Any suggestion on how to fix this would be appreciated and also I'd be happy to provide more information in case it helps to fix a bug.



↧
↧

Edited Issue: VeraCrypt 1.16/1.17 unable to detect OSXFUSE 3.2.0 version number correctly [394]

February 20, 2016, 4:15 pm
$
0
0
From issue #268 submitted to OSXFUSE team:
---
With version 3.2.0, both version 1.16 and the the current version 1.17 of VeraCrypt throw error "VeraCrypt requires OSXFUSE 2.3 or later with MacFUSE compatibility layer installer. Please ensure that you have selected this compatibility layer during OSXFUSE installation." during a container mount. Version 2.8.3 of OSXFUSE works as expected. This is using the installer linked on https://osxfuse.github.io/.

The MacFUSE framework is installed. Confirmed by manually deleting \Library\Frameworks\MacFUSE.framework (and OSXFUSE.framework) before installation.

RESPONSE from bfleischer ---

Please report this issue to the VeryCrypt team. VeryCrypt relies on the osxfuse.version.number sysctl to check the version number of osxfuse. In osxfuse 3.x the sysctl has moved to vfs.generic.osxfuse.version.number.


↧

Commented Issue: VeraCrypt 1.16/1.17 unable to detect OSXFUSE 3.2.0 version number correctly [394]

February 20, 2016, 4:15 pm
$
0
0
From issue #268 submitted to OSXFUSE team:
---
With version 3.2.0, both version 1.16 and the the current version 1.17 of VeraCrypt throw error "VeraCrypt requires OSXFUSE 2.3 or later with MacFUSE compatibility layer installer. Please ensure that you have selected this compatibility layer during OSXFUSE installation." during a container mount. Version 2.8.3 of OSXFUSE works as expected. This is using the installer linked on https://osxfuse.github.io/.

The MacFUSE framework is installed. Confirmed by manually deleting \Library\Frameworks\MacFUSE.framework (and OSXFUSE.framework) before installation.

RESPONSE from bfleischer ---

Please report this issue to the VeryCrypt team. VeryCrypt relies on the osxfuse.version.number sysctl to check the version number of osxfuse. In osxfuse 3.x the sysctl has moved to vfs.generic.osxfuse.version.number.


Comments: Thank you for reporting this and posting the OSXFuse developer answer. I have implemented a fix and I uploaded an installer for version 1.18-BETA that includes at https://sourceforge.net/projects/veracrypt/files/VeraCrypt%20Nightly%20Builds
↧

New Post: 2 requests: 1 super easy (10s for you to do), 1 a lot more difficult.

February 20, 2016, 4:44 pm
$
0
0
Enigma2Illusion wrote:
FYI, version 1.17 implements masking the bootloader password.
Bootloader: Protect password/PIM length by filling the fields to maximum length with '*' after ENTER
.
Are you using 1.17? Are the password and PIM values still visible as plaintext when using F5 after hitting the enter key?
Whoops! I thought I was using 1.17, still on 16. I'll update right now. I looks like BootMain.cpp was updated to fix this bug.
↧

New Post: 1.18 Beta Release - Feedback or Issues

February 20, 2016, 5:00 pm
↧
↧

New Post: BitLocker & VeraCrypt

February 20, 2016, 9:36 pm
$
0
0
I realize it is more trouble than it may be worth but is there any technical reason that would prevent an individual from using VeraCrypt and BitLocker for whole disk encryption concurrently.

I've tested the config on a VM with VeraCrypt 1.17 and BitLocker set to password authentication on boot without TPM without issues.

Could this setup lead to potential issues down the road that could lead to instability or corruption.

Real world benefits aside is there any negative to this approach?
↧

Commented Issue: Windows Uninstall Does Not Remove All Registry Keys [107]

February 21, 2016, 9:29 am
$
0
0
Hello Mounir,

When I uninstall VeraCrypt due to some testing I was performing, I noticed that the registry still has references to the VeraCrypt and VeraCrypt Extender.

Would it be possible for the uninstaller to remove all the VeraCrypt Keys and/or values to the key to improve program cleanup when uninstalled?

For example, have VeraCrypt remove its value from MuiCache keys. In other instances, remove the key such as FileExts for ".hc".


Here are the keys I found with VeraCrypt when I uninstall the product:

__HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT__

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\TypeLib\{9ACF6176-5FC4-4690-A025-B3306A50EB6A}]

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Wow6432Node\TypeLib\{9ACF6176-5FC4-4690-A025-B3306A50EB6A}]

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\MuiCache]


__HKEY_CURRENT_USER__

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\FileExts\.hc]

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\MuiCache]

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Compatibility Assistant\Persisted]


__HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE__

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\TypeLib\{9ACF6176-5FC4-4690-A025-B3306A50EB6A}]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Wow6432Node\TypeLib\{9ACF6176-5FC4-4690-A025-B3306A50EB6A}]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Classes\TypeLib\{9ACF6176-5FC4-4690-A025-B3306A50EB6A}]


__HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE__

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_VERACRYPT]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Enum\Root\LEGACY_VERACRYPT]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_VERACRYPT]


__HKEY_USERS__

[HKEY_USERS\<Alphanumeric Number>\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\MuiCache]

[HKEY_USERS\<Alphanumeric Number>_Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\MuiCache]

[HKEY_USERS\<Alphanumeric Number>\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Compatibility Assistant\Persisted]

[HKEY_USERS\<Alphanumeric Number>\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\FileExts\.hc]

Thank you!
Comments: Hello Mounir, I am reopening this ticket due to test I performed uninstalling using 1.18 Beta 1 shows that there are VeraCrypt registry entries existing in the following sections: * HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT * HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE I have attached a file called "1.18 Deinstall Registry Entries Remaining.txt" showing the entries on my Win7 Professional 64-bit system after uninstalling 1.18 version. Kind Regards.
↧
Search

New Post: BitLocker & VeraCrypt

February 21, 2016, 9:44 am
$
0
0
Hello Alex,

This is the nature of software that performs the same function with their own drivers. For example, you can install more than one AntiVirus software on your PC. However, at some point they will be in conflict with each other as they both want to be the primary controller for active/passive scanning files and internet activity.

For encryption software, the encryption software driver intercepts the I/O request to perform the on-the-fly encryption/decryption tasks. Driver conflicts can occur when two or more drivers are trying to perform the same task at the same time.

I hope my explanation makes sense.

Kind Regards.
↧

New Post: Rememeber "TrueCrypt-Mode" checkbox when Auto-Mount Devices

February 21, 2016, 10:09 am
↧
↧

New Post: 2nd hidden drive letter exists, and appears after dismount and eject

February 21, 2016, 10:36 am
$
0
0
Hello Kadett,

With all TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt volumes dismounted and using Windows Disk Management, do you still see a drive letters assigned by Windows to the non-system partitions that you encrypted in Disk Management?

If yes, remove the drive letters and reboot PC. Hopefully this will remove the issue that the partitions are in use.

Kind Regards.
↧

New Post: Will Veracrypt ever support Tresor kernel patch?

February 21, 2016, 12:18 pm
$
0
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRESOR
Today As I understand it stores keys in RAM. Is it possible to implement this, at least as an option?
Second question - "inspired" by Apple phone to some extent - can Veracrypt optionally erase the encryption headers after some number of unsuccessful login trials?
Does anybody have an opinion about that?
↧

New Post: Will Veracrypt ever support Tresor kernel patch?

February 21, 2016, 12:24 pm
$
0
0
Regarding your second question, this feature request has been discussed and rejected due to an advisory or government agency is not going to let you access the original encrypted volumes. Also, the source code is public, so they can easily disable any attempts to wipe the headers after N login attempts by running their modified code.

There is a feature request created for a panic button.

https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/workitem/26

Kind Regards.
↧
Viewing all 7620 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>