TechGenix and SolarWinds have partnered to provide a fully-functional, free 21-day trial version of SolarWinds ipMonitor, the WindowsNetworking.com Readers' Choice Award Winner for monitoring applications, servers, and network devices to all visitors who join Security Forums. Sign up to Security Forums and get your copy today! Existing members can pick up a copy from the Members Area.
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
securitynmind
New Member
Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 40
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| SuperE wrote: |
I have trueCrypt though but I am afraid to use it. I'm afraid that it will crash and I lost my stuff I put in there.
|
You're afraid of Truecrypt crashing and you losing your data, but you're not afraid of the same with Steganos? I've been using Truecrypt since early betas. It is now very stable and has no issues of volume corruption. Steganos is just more closed-source software and I certainly wouldn't trust that. Listen to Justin - he knows his stuff. Axcrypt and Truecrypt is all for me - nothing else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SuperE
Lurker
Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm getting ready to make me a container with TC and put a folder in it that I want to encrypt
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
necro1234
Forum Addict
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 337
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ye I agree 100% with securitynmind, TC is very small n streamlined and very stable so far.
Just like with all encryption, backups are a good idea, but TC is very stable with its data.
Cheers
Sheldon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhiBer
Trusted SF Member
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Your MBR
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
In TrueCrypt, I have noticed that you can choose two Hashing Algorithms: SHA1 & RIPEMD-160. Which would you recommend and why? Also, would using just AES be any less secure than using the AES-Blowfish-Serpent algorithm? I see the AES-Blowfish-Serpent scenario as being slower than AES by itself and possibly overkill, can anyone elaborate on this?
_________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy" –Martin Luther King
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustinT
Trusted SF Member
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 1225
Location: Asheville, NC, US / Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:25 am Post subject: Just some thoughts. |
|
|
| PhiBerOptiCx wrote: |
| In TrueCrypt, I have noticed that you can choose two Hashing Algorithms: SHA1 & RIPEMD-160. Which would you recommend and why? Also, would using just AES be any less secure than using the AES-Blowfish-Serpent algorithm? I see the AES-Blowfish-Serpent scenario as being slower than AES by itself and possibly overkill, can anyone elaborate on this? |
(I've commented on similar things at the TrueCrypt forum, if you'd care to pop over there for a look.)
Well, they are both Unbalanced Feistel Networks, so some of the same structural concerns may apply to both. Judging by how they are applied (i.e., hash functions can be used in constructions where certain attacks that may apply to one construction may not apply to the other), either should suffice, but not quite conservatively. In the HMAC construction, you should get by.
As for cascading, there is certainly the potential for an increase in cryptographic security; this is no guarantee, on the other hand. Also, a cascade has the potential to introduce complexity in making sure everything is implemented properly*, as well as raise the concern over whether or not subtle interactions take place between the primitives that could lead to insecurity. To be fair, in practice, this shouldn't be an imminent threat, but the potential for implementation complexity still exists, and it's possible to be conservative with a single primitive; this is how they are designed to be used.
Personally, I would rather achieve the simplicity of using a single primitive, conservatively, than add to the complexity of my system by integrating a concatenation that hasn't been thoroughly analyzed. For what it's worth, if you use it, it likely won't hurt, provided the soundness of the implementation. It may increase security, but given our current assumptions, this increase won't be "felt", practically. The reason behind cascades is logical, but not a necessity, and oftentimes, not feasible when you consider the tight constraints imposed by some systems, media, et cetera. If you haven't those constraints, then by all means, if you prefer it, go for it.
* (Because implementation correctness will dictate the effectiveness of cryptography, we want to keep things as simple as possible. With a cascade, we have more primitives to worry about, which means we have more key material to worry about, as well as modes of operation. There's a lot that hasn't been analyzed. Because this isn't a necessity, I do not necessarily "promote" it, or advocate it as being vital. The reason that most folks use it, is generally overkill; this correlates somewhat to the reason for using insanely large key lengths, but that's another story.)
_________________
"Strict Avalanche Criterion n. Restrictive clause in ski-insurance policy."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mameluke
New Member
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi everyone.
This is my first post 
A really cool program I have been using is BlowFish Advanced CS.
It's opensource and has a lot of convenient features. I personally like the Keydisk one. Check it out.
http://maakus.dyndns.org/software.html
I also use TrueCrypt for container type encryption and recommend that one too.
Mame
_________________
Freedom above all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReNu
New Member
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i was using Bestcrypt for a while.. i thign it has a back door to the program,,
now iam using DriveCrypt,, they are made in germany and they have no law about encryption export..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
necro1234
Forum Addict
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 337
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok and why do you think Jetico has a backdoor?
Next, SecureStars lead programmer Shaun is from Britian.
Next, the guy that runs SS is a convicted criminal.
Next, SecureStar constantly uses snail oil slogans such as "military encryption" and go on about this 1344 bit cipher they have "developed" which is blowfish rolled over 3 times.
How do you really know that their blowfish implementation which they give no real info about, is really secure?
Jetico is from Finland, they do not have export laws for crypto either, so what does this matter?
Any info would be appreciated
Cheers
Sheldon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cordel
Just Arrived
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been using Kryptel http://www.kryptel.com for about two years and like it a lot. I am not an expert and don't know much about how it works except it works great for me. And what's more important, they have really responsive and helpful support - not a common thing these days 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hpguru
Just Arrived
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| necro1234 wrote: |
...the guy that runs SS is a convicted criminal.
|
Can you provide documentation of this from an official source?
| necro1234 wrote: |
...SecureStar constantly uses snail oil slogans such as "military encryption" and go on about this 1344 bit cipher they have "developed" which is blowfish rolled over 3 times.
How do you really know that their blowfish implementation which they give no real info about, is really secure?
|
You have stated yourself that they provide no real information regarding their 1344 bit BF cypher, so how do you know it is merely "blowfish rolled over 3 times"? Is this documented, are you guessing or have you used some other means of ascertaining this?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Segovia
Just Arrived
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperE wrote: |
| As I stated before I want something to encrypt pictures for a cd to send to family. I want to make it easy for them just to use 1 program and not have to use a program like 7-zip and an encryption program. |
Perhaps BCArchive? http://www.jetico.com You can create encrypted, compressed, self-extracted executable files. The recipient would not need to have any program installed at all. He can simple execute it and put in the password. Done.
It's not open source, however it is free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
