Free drive encryption
-
Also, even if disgruntled employees did decide to do this, they wouldn't get very far because they would need Apple Signing Certificate to sign the code along with a nonce from the phone itself.
The way the iphones update works as follows:
iphone checks update server finds an update
iphone sends nonce to Apple,
Apple cryptographically signs nonce and update package
phone verifies that signature matches known good Apple cert from local, on phone archive
assuming good, installs update.If the ex-employees don't have Apple certificate - they can't get anywhere.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What would a fake one be?
A program that says it is the "next generation" of True Crypt, but isn't the logical resumption of the programming.
Ah. No one has done that
Yes, this is the TC code.
-
@Dashrender said:
Personally, for the standard things we need to be concerned about - a stolen laptop that had HIPAA data or some such, Bitlocker is totally acceptable. If you're worried about the NSA, then no, you can't use it.
TL;DR = Bitlocker for audits, VC for security.
-
@BRRABill said:
@Dashrender said:
Exactly - and I'm betting you won't find any either. It's like this FBI thing and the bomber's phone. I'm not sure I believe that anyone actually cracked the encryption on the phone. Personally I think that's a lie so they could drop a case they felt they were losing and didn't want to have a precedent set against them.
I actually believe it.
It was for an older model, and only applicable under certain circumstances.
It like we always say, if they have the device, they'll eventually have the data.
We say that about smart people, not the FBI
-
@BRRABill said:
Ultimately security rests in keeping the secret service dedicated, and people like Snowden from saying anything. If someone with the "keys to the kingdom" decides to go rogue ... who knows what could happen?
Snowden isn't some kind of ultra hacker. He's just a guy who had access and ethics. Anyone in the security department with his strong moral character could have done the same thing. It's just that everyone else was happy working against the public and hiding what they were doing from Americans - or were scared and lived with regret.
I don't consider Snowden rogue, he did his patriotic and civil duty. It's the rest that were rogue and acting against the people that were supposed to protect.
-
@BRRABill said:
Didn't Apple say they COULD do it, but wouldn't?
Yes, and they recognized that this was a security vulnerability and are now changing that.
-
@BRRABill said:
Is that really so outlandish to even consider?
But that's using a specific vulnerability in the Apple ecosystem (that is being plugged) to determine that such a thing can't be avoided. Apple says that it can be avoided and that they are going to avoid it in the future.
-
I use Veracrypt, It's fully compatible with Truecrypt.
It's free and very similar to Truecrypt, I use it with Dropbox and Google Drive.
-
My brother and I discuss encryption sometimes and have pick on / at TC and VC... This discussion has been a good read.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
We say that about smart people, not the FBI
Yes but the FBI has money at its disposal to buy smart people if it wishes.
Or coerce them, of course.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
Ultimately security rests in keeping the secret service dedicated, and people like Snowden from saying anything. If someone with the "keys to the kingdom" decides to go rogue ... who knows what could happen?
Snowden isn't some kind of ultra hacker. He's just a guy who had access and ethics. Anyone in the security department with his strong moral character could have done the same thing. It's just that everyone else was happy working against the public and hiding what they were doing from Americans - or were scared and lived with regret.
I don't consider Snowden rogue, he did his patriotic and civil duty. It's the rest that were rogue and acting against the people that were supposed to protect.
My point is that there are people with access and knowledge. If they decide to make a break for it, regardless of why, the system is compromised.
-
@BRRABill said:
My point is that there are people with access and knowledge. If they decide to make a break for it, regardless of why, the system is compromised.
Ah, thought taht you were thinking that he broke in somehow.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Ah, thought taht you were thinking that he broke in somehow.
No just that regardless of what we are talking about, government documents and secrets or the secure enclave, someone knows where the bodies are buried and could cause damage if they wanted to.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Ah, thought taht you were thinking that he broke in somehow.
No just that regardless of what we are talking about, government documents and secrets or the secure enclave, someone knows where the bodies are buried and could cause damage if they wanted to.
that's mostly true, but good cryptography systems are supposed to be designed without the ability to disable them. That's what Apple is changing in their new releases.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
that's mostly true, but good cryptography systems are supposed to be designed without the ability to disable them. That's what Apple is changing in their new releases.
You've already convinced me that once you lose the physical device, the data is compromised.
THERE'S NO TURNING BACK NOW!
-
@Dashrender said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, for the standard things we need to be concerned about - a stolen laptop that had HIPAA data or some such, Bitlocker is totally acceptable. If you're worried about the NSA, then no, you can't use it.
It's more of a search for the "gotcha" in Bitlocker. There's so much controversy behind it, I'm just curious if there is a "see... it's crackable with <method x> or <software x>." I haven't found any solid evidence throughout the years aside from the cold boot vulnerabilities, so that's why I turned to the community.
Exactly - and I'm betting you won't find any either. It's like this FBI thing and the bomber's phone. I'm not sure I believe that anyone actually cracked the encryption on the phone. Personally I think that's a lie so they could drop a case they felt they were losing and didn't want to have a precedent set against them.
So you're speculating that Bitlocker is ultra secure,
ultra? who's to say - but I do consider it secure enough for the common man to use. Again, Healthcare worker trying to keep their PHI (personal health information) away from prying eyes on a stolen laptop, it's more than likely fine, the average thug on the street will just format it if able and reinstall Windows and move on. But if you're talking about a targeted attack, say the FBI is trying - then I have no idea how good it is against them trying to crack into it.
or any material on it is just being smothered?
No idea what you mean here.
Sorry, what I meant is any material that shows it is able to be cracked, is not lasting online as its been kept hush-hush... (that's getting more into conspiracy territory though).
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
that's mostly true, but good cryptography systems are supposed to be designed without the ability to disable them. That's what Apple is changing in their new releases.
You've already convinced me that once you lose the physical device, the data is compromised.
THERE'S NO TURNING BACK NOW!
eh? I definitely don't believe this - of course assuming I am using a crypto that I believe in.
-
@iroal said:
I use Veracrypt, It's fully compatible with Truecrypt.
It's free and very similar to Truecrypt, I use it with Dropbox and Google Drive.
Veracrypt here as well
