Timeline for Two factor authentication and plausible deniability for disk encryption
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2020 at 13:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 7, 2019 at 8:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 22:57 | comment | added | forest | @Xen2050 I can't think of any non-contrived scenario where that would be the case, otherwise literally everyone is screwed because even your old encrypted swap file in unallocated space could be a TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt volume. In reality, it's quite useful e.g. at border inspections. They can demand a password but they aren't going to beat it out of you under a bright light like in the movies. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 21:48 | comment | added | Xen2050 | @forest True, in most situations & countries you're generally "innocent until proven guilty," and it's a slightly strange example, but the bottom line is if you can't prove you don't have hidden encrypted data, then you could be screwed | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 4:46 | answer | added | forest | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 4:45 | comment | added | forest | @Xen2050 It depends in your threat model. Also that write-up is kind of stupid. | |
| Oct 21, 2018 at 10:45 | comment | added | Xen2050 | I read that Plausible Deniability is Theoretically Useless and you might regret not using it | |
| Oct 20, 2018 at 11:38 | comment | added | itwasthedog | @Daisetsu Not really what I am looking for. I know about plausible deniabilty for encryption, but I'm more interested in how to plausible deny the second factor. Bakuriu, This is true but lets say you have a dog full of encrypted disks each having LUKS or Veracrypt header plus you have a part of the disk where your bootloader and kernel + initrd resides and the rest of the disk looks like encrypted data. So guess what could be in this part which looks like encrypted data. Yes, I know you can't prove that there is something in there or that it is encrypted at all, but it is quite improbable. | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:50 | comment | added | Bakuriu | No a Yubikey is not required. You don't have to do anything except saying "there is no encrypted volume" and "You are mistaken". That's the point of plausible deniability, the attacker cannot know whether encrypted data even exists. | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | Daisetsu | Veracryot has a page about the plausable deniability of hidden volumes. veracrypt.fr/en/Plausible%20Deniability.html that may be what you're looking for. | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:27 | comment | added | itwasthedog | Well, also true, I hope the second part about the dog makes it more clear on if/how the second factor is/has been used/required ;) | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:26 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | "has been used" does not imply that it is required, just that someone tried | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:26 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | @deviantfan i hear you, but I was really confused in the other wording. Suggestions? | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:19 | comment | added | deviantfan | (just my opinion, but "been used" was more clear ... when reading now, I was thinking "of course a second factor is not required to use LUKS etc., what do you want to prove there") | |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:15 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:59 | |||||
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:12 | history | edited | schroeder♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Oct 19, 2018 at 21:10 | history | asked | itwasthedog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |