Security Experts Looking To Possibly Fork And Rescue TrueCrypt

from the not-a-surprise dept

People are still trying to figure out what the hell happened with TrueCrypt suddenly announcing that development had stopped and that the code was not secure. However, as people sort that out, the same folks who were leading the charge on the TrueCrypt audit have announced that they're looking into the possibility of picking up the TrueCrypt project and running with it themselves. The idea would be to complete the security audit, but then start managing a fork of the project themselves. They haven't fully committed to this, but it sounds like that's what they'd like to do. Yet another example of how open source projects are quite handy.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 9:14pm

    Interesting

    The greatest strength of OS code, someone else can fork the project and continue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    David Dowdle (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 9:14pm

    Words can't express how much I hope they do this.
    Good encryption software should be available to all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 9:24pm

    Yet another example of how open source projects are quite handy.


    You've misspelled hardy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 10:01pm

    SourceForge: Where projects go to live out their three-year lifespans, then die.

    Because imply-development-is-really-hard-here. Or in this case, a new twist! "You don't need this software really, use Microsoft's"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 12:58am

      Re:

      There are potentially much more nefarious reasons why the TrueCrypt devteam have decided to do this, from NSA chicanery to simple developer drama llama ninjas.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Todd Knarr (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 10:13pm

    Grain of salt

    Before I'd trust a fork, I'd want an idea of why the original developers considered it insecure in the first place. I'd think if they just didn't have the resources or interest to maintain it, they'd say they were ceasing to maintain it rather than make an ambiguous statement about security. And there's more than one security risk. If it were something like they were ordered to hand over copies of the private key used to sign binaries, rendering TrueCrypt vulnerable to government-created "official" versions, that can be dealt with in several ways. If it's a case of TrueCrypt being unable to protect the data against interception within Windows on it's way to the application, there's nothing anyone can do about that and it has to be mitigated against in other ways. And if finally there really is some obscure and fatal flaw in the basic design or coding of TrueCrypt that makes it inherently vulnerable, we'd need to know what it is so we know any new maintainers have in fact fixed it before we could trust the new fork.

    I'd note one interesting indirect attack: use methods that'll cause the most secure projects to declare themselves at risk without letting them say why, letting paranoia push users into switching to software maintained by less scrupulous companies who'll stay quiet about their software being compromised until forced by outside discovery of the compromise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Spread love with assorted flower gifts

    I sent my girlfriend flowers from France, and now I am homeless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Spread love with assorted flower gifts

    I sent my girlfriend flowers from France, and now I am homeless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Spread love with assorted flower gifts

    I sent my girlfriend flowers from France, and now I am homeless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 12:40am

      Re: Re: Spread love with assorted flower gifts

      I sent my girlfriend to France with a homeless man, they sent me flowers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 11:21pm

    Dear Techdirt...

    ...Please fix your antiquated commenting system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 7:08am

      Re: Dear Techdirt...

      This sort of bare comment isn't really helpful. What exactly about the Techdirt comment system do you see as antiquated, or otherwise problematic?

      I think it's one of the better ones I've seen in current use. About the only thing I could point to as unambiguously improvable about it is the fact that posting a new comment takes you to a different page, and you have to go "back" to continue reading from where you left off.

      (There are of course quite a few of what I might call "ambiguously improvable" things, i.e., things which if changed in the way I have in mind might end up better, or worse, or even just different after all.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        vancedecker (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: Dear Techdirt...

        Scroll up.

        Let's ignore the WHY of why my comment got posted THREE times and just deal with the consequences. There is no delete button for starters.

        So their buggy code which causes that to occur in the first place, cannot even be manually corrected.

        So that would my first complaint.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 12:32am

    >suddenly announcing that development had stopped and that the code was not secure.
    Is it even a question? Everyone knows who is behind this. It was the beloved Dictator, Commander in chief, Admiral, General, CEO, President of the Free Democratic Peoples Federal Republic of America.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violated (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:30am

    I hope this is true then when nothing helps TrueCrypt more than some encryption security experts.

    TrueCrypt is a truly beautiful program. Small and very portable, cross platform, easy to use, good advise and powerful encryption features.

    As long as TrueCrypt lives on I would never use another.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    andre, 30 May 2014 @ 2:47am

    TrueCrypt 7.1a download + Komplettes Archiv mit SourceCode und informationen

    For all looking for the current secure release + older versions and sources and some additional information, i recently made website about the whole events with a data archive. all files with hashes for download.

    visit http://www.truecrypt71a.com for further information

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    doug, 30 May 2014 @ 4:08am

    Gibson's new summary & links page

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rich Kulawiec, 30 May 2014 @ 4:42am

      Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

      Well, the developers are certainly correct about Bitlocker: nobody who's serious about security would even consider using Windows, so for those people who insist on doing so anyway...let them use Bitlocker, it's only the second-worst decision they've made.

      I do hope the neo-Truecrypt project takes that to heart and excises all support for Windows. Supporting an inferior operating system is a lot of work, and takes away resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The focus should be entirely on 'nix-based systems.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 8:20am

        Re: Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

        The problem with BitLocker isn't that it runs on Windows, it's that it uses the Windows crypto API. It's certainly possible to have strong encryption in Windows. Just not using BitLocker.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rich Kulawiec, 30 May 2014 @ 9:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

          "The problem with BitLocker isn't that it runs on Windows [...]"

          Yes. It is. People who care about security and privacy do not use Windows (a) because it's a maldesigned piece of junk with an enormous and still-growing litany of baked-in security problems and (b) it's closed-source, which means if it's backdoored -- and I think there's a fair chance that it is -- that it will be very difficult to discover that.

          If you want at least a modicum of security, then make a better choice in OS. But please, let's not even put "Windows" and "security" in the same room together.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 9:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

            I don't disagree, basically (although it is certainly possible to run a secure Windows installation, it takes more work and skill than most people are willing to invest. It's easier just to use a more secure OS from the start.) But we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the security of the crypto, not the OS.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

        "... nobody who's serious about security would even consider using Window ..."

        Bruce Schneier uses Windows on a regular basis (Google it), so your statement is incorrect.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 10:36pm

        Re: Re: Gibson's new summary & links page

        Great - lets only allow protection to the informed and clever and leave the unwashed masses without any.

        That was sarcasm, and you sir are an elitist snob.

        We should support good encryption EVERYWHERE and let people make their choice regardless of what OS they use.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 5:20am

    fix license issue first

    TrueCrypt is not FOSS. They'll need to fix the license issue first. I'm guessing they'll have to deal with removing and replacing the contended E4M derived code before they can be in the clear abut forking it. This assuming the current developers want to allow forking the original portions of the code.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      doug, 30 May 2014 @ 6:06am

      Re: fix license issue first

      There is a forked version already. I don't know all the details of the license issues.

      "The realcrypt application in the RPM Fusion repo is an encryption application based on truecrypt, freely available at http://www.truecrypt.org/. It differs from truecrypt in only the following ways:

      "- The name truecrypt is changed to realcrypt throughout the application, as requested by the truecrypt License:

      " -All original graphics are replaced with entirely original new ones, as requested by the truecrypt License:"

      -more-

      "It does not differ from truecrypt in any other respect; in particular, no code relating to actual encryption or decryption is modified. Nevertheless, the truecrypt License requires that we ask you to report any and all bugs you find to [https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/ RPM Fusion's Bugzilla] and not to the truecrypt project."

      Source -- http://rpmfusion.org/Package/realcrypt

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 5:58am

    "WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues"
    .............................^N..^S.....^A.........

    Hidden message?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 9:25am

    It would be

    one kickstarter project I would actually support.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Not Paranoid at All, 31 May 2014 @ 6:44pm

    Peazip for encryption

    Is there anything fundamentally wrong with using PeaZip for AES 256 bit encryption? Just for containers.

    Peazip is open source and quite widely used.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 8:01pm

    Backdoors can be anywhere including open source s/w

    The problem for s/w developers today is that all systems can be "backdoored" without the backdoor existing in the source code of the application you are compiling.

    Any toolchain in use can be compromised without the source code being compromised. All it takes is to generate a single compiler that inserts the backdoor into any system in a specific manner and all compilers and all applications generated thereafter can be compromised.

    When we look at something like *ix systems, at some point we need to use a binary to compile the source code of the compilers we use. All it takes is a single infestation into a distribution to propagate that infection.

    To get around this, it requires knowing the provenance of all code within the system, including any binaries that are in use.

    Of course, it goes without saying that to do this requires real skill, foresight and knowledge. This is not necessarily the domain of any of our security forces/organisations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2014 @ 5:21am

      Re: Backdoors can be anywhere including open source s/w

      Any toolchain in use can be compromised without the source code being compromised. All it takes is to generate a single compiler that inserts the backdoor into any system in a specific manner and all compilers and all applications generated thereafter can be compromised.

      I presume you are referring the the Ken Thompson hack. All such hacks are liable to discovery as a system evolves, and better debugging tools become available. Also they are liable to failure when the underlying system changes. Such hacks have to be targeted to very specific routines, and have to assume that neither the routine name, or required actions change. Relying on any external code introduces another point of failure. All code that is not maintained will fail due to external changes at some point in time.
      Note one extreme weakness of such hacks, they cannot keep their insertions hidden from a reverse assembler, as it is always possible to write a reverse assembler and compile it without the hack being able to detect it, never mind change it. Similarly, with open source, it is always possible to add logging code to the kernel that the hack cannot detect and bypass. Code that did not exist prior to the hack being implemented, or never available to the person carrying out the hack cannot be modified by the hack.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2014 @ 8:39am

        Re: Re: Backdoors can be anywhere including open source s/w

        Agreed, they are not completely hidden (particularly with reverse assemblers), but the ting here is that with the various optimisations that compilers do do, various signatures in the object code can be recognised to place the compromised object code accordingly.

        Any part of the toolchain can be compromised accordingly for this kind of purpose up to and including the linkers and loaders.

        We see enough problems with source code having errors, let alone trying to determine what is actually happening with the object code generated.

        The problem is that most people "trust" that the tools they are using are okay and don't go that extra 100 miles to check the binary code generated.

        I know that in my youth I would set aside time to examine the binary code produced particularly if strange errors were being obtained. But these days, for the kind of stuff I do, I don't put in such time as I have other things that need to be done.

        All I am saying is that backdoors can be put in without any changes being made to the source code.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DaveHowe (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:51am

    Audit guys are backpeddling a bit but..

    Or at least this guy:
    https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/

    His original tweet was:
    "We are considering several scenarios, including potentially supporting a fork under appropriate free license, w/ a fully reproducible build."
    But later followed up with:
    "Just for the record, we are not 'forking Truecrypt'. We plan to audit it and perhaps organize (financial) support around such an effort."

    Now, there IS a fork in the process of creation over at http://truecrypt.ch/ but as it is in the early stages of the process, and the Audit guys have yet to complete the rest of their study of the app crypto, it would be better to leave this on the back-burner until we know what bugs need to be fixed....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    T (profile), 4 Jul 2014 @ 5:05am

    Has it not occurred to people that they may very well have said it wasn't secure *because* they were no longer going to maintain it—not because they were aware of any flaws?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    cool bed covers, 4 Dec 2014 @ 11:00pm

    IDEAL Homes

    I love your well-written Post,your article help me to get some ideas
    Thanks for you Share This Amazing Post,
    Click Here, http://idealhomeinterior.com/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Frok (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:45pm

    shhh itty bitty soft fascism

    Gag orders are [redacted]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Copymouse
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.