Briefly,
1) I have installed TrueCrypt on a USB thumb drive for use on several computers.
2) Initially, I wish to encrypt a 2 TB USB external hdd.
3) What is the optimal size for the "hidden container" within this encrypted 2 TB drive so as to have "plausible deniability"?
My fear is that if the accessible (not hidden) container appears too small, the existence of a hidden container would be obvious.
What I don't understand is what sizing each volume (the one where you are forced to give up a password) and the other "hidden" volume should ideally have.
I mean you could argue that if you made the "I give up; here's my password" partition only 100 GB and the Hidden Volume 1.9 TB (extreme example) it would look suspicious.
Any suggestions as to an optimal allocation for the two volumes on a 2 TB drive?
Thanks!
Daniel,
My understanding is that the non-hidden container size would be made to occupy the entire device and the hidden container size is a smaller portion of that non-hidden container. In your case, the entire 2GB would be encrypted as a non-hidden container, while a hidden container could be any size up to just slightly less than the non-hidden container size. This would allow you to put some innocuous items within the non-hidden container, while reserving the rest of the space on the device for items you want stored within the hidden container.
Yeah - what Mark said. It's actually the opposite - you create the visible container, and if it's 2TB with hardly any data in it, and high entropy data in UA, then one could suspect a hidden TC container.
But that's besides the point - if you have an 'unhidden' TC container, I'm always going to suspect a hidden one when the unhidden one occupies an entire device.
If you only need to store a small amount of encrypted data in the hidden container, then keep the hidden container small and fill the unhidden with movies or something.
With the utmost respect to Mark for taking time to answer my question, I must agree with you Phobby.
If you only need to store a small amount of encrypted data in the hidden container, then keep the hidden container small and fill the unhidden with movies or something.
All my life I've been a slave to my background in logic and systematic thought. I just don't know how to think any other way. Now that I think about it, I'm kind of a boring person actually.
Now if I reduce what you are saying to "absurdity" (the extreme), I can only conclude that a Hidden Volume is useless for real security. Just by using TC you are advertizing the possible existence of a Hidden Volume.
More cynically said, the so-called Hidden Volume reminds me of the old Hardy Boys books I read as a kid, i.e. more of a gimmick than a reliable tool. Perhaps it's better just to encrypt the whole darned 2 TB and be done with it. ?
Btw, I feel privileged to be accepted as a member of this forum.
Thank you so much. )
The best thing to do is find a file type that can be karge enough to store your files, but can also avoid detection. I have seen people use video file extensions to hide their containers in, and these can go undetected fairly well. Its when you have a 10gb txt file that peoiple start to get a little suspicious. If you want plausible deniability good luck. In my experiences with law enforcement there is no such thing.
The best thing to do is find a file type that can be karge enough to store your files, but can also avoid detection. I have seen people use video file extensions to hide their containers in, and these can go undetected fairly well.
But - on the other hand - detecting that it is not a "real" video file is as difficult as double clicking on it and see that it doesn't play roll , and - in the case of an investigation, depending on the kind of offence you are charged with or suspected of, pictures and video files tend to be #1 and #2 on the list of "files to be examined".
Its when you have a 10gb txt file that peoiple start to get a little suspicious.
Yep. )
If you want plausible deniability good luck. In my experiences with law enforcement there is no such thing.
As a matter of fact there isn't even with non-LE (as a matter of fact usually LE are prevented by the Law to use the US$ 5 wrench trick)
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6567817/highlight=plausible/#6567817
whilst non-LE may use it….
@DanielDavis
If you sum to the "plausible deniability" the good ol' concept of needles and haystacks, it comes out as obvious that the smaller is the "hidden" data the easier is to conceal it….
Maybe the question you had in mind is more like "how big can i make the "hidden" data container and reasonably hope that noone will notice at first sight?"
jaclaz