"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48f38e44@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

>   Except that TrueCrypt is open source. That more or less ensures that it
> doesn't do anything behind the scenes.

Fair enough, didn't check that first. Although, OS alone does not of course
ensure anything in principle. There's much OS out there which I doubt more
than one person ever looked at the source. Depends on how many developers
are actually working on it. Also, the backdoor may not be visible in the
code. It's possible to develop a novel encryption scheme for which only you
know the weakness. It may take a while for others to discover the problem.

> > Also, if the investigators fill with true random bits the sections that
you
> > have encrypted, before turning it over, can you sue them for lost data?

>   But then, how do they know that they are overwriting encrypted data?

They don't need to know. They can low level fill all unused sectors.

> They have no way of proving that a certain file is actually encrypted
> rather than containing some data used by some program.

Neither can you claim they wiped your data then.

Post a reply to this message