If you're going to use file containers only, why not just use encrypted WinZip? or 7-Zip or whatever? (8/12/2017 because Winzip, etc still leak the individual filenames).

If an adversary compels me to open an outer volume containing a hidden volume, I cannot mount with the hidden volume protected. The adversary could compel me to save a lot of data to the outer volume, guaranteeing that a hidden volume would be destroyed.

Linux versions of TrueCrypt do not allow encrypted partitions and drives; the volume must be a file on an open file system.

Consider a drive with three embedded file systems - an open fs, an outer encrypted fs file, and a hidden stenographic fs.
  • Open file system
    • NTFS - allows for outer fs greater 4GB or greater (FAT does not). However if outer fs is 4GB+, you probably won't be copying it around, so you might as well encrypt the full partition.
    • FAT - required for Mac compatibility; outer can be only <= 4GB
    • outer fs shows as obvious file (secure but not deniable).
  • Outer file system
    • NTFS - hidden can only be 1/2 size, required to store files >= 4GB.
    • FAT - more suitable 'cause hidden can be bigger (4 GB limit on hidden doesn't count)
  • Hidden fs
    • NTFS or FAT, Mac and r/w FAT, read only NTFS.

No need to delete a hidden fs. Just use the outer fs without protecting the hidden one. It will be eventually written over. You can just go make another hidden system at a later time. An any time you make a second hidden fs, it overwrites the first one.

However, even if hidden is not protected when outer is mounted, outer will still error if it bumps into one of the sectors previously held for the hidden fs. Uggh.. this is weird. Or maybe I really have some other sort of error going on.

Created by . Last Modification: Saturday 31 of August, 2013 14:03:48 CDT by brian.