

Keep encrypted files private even from governments demanding the password - lucb1e
https://lucb1e.com/rp/php/secrypt/

======
ck2
Password protection won't work against the "rubber-hose" method of obtaining
it.

You assume governments are going to play nice. Even if they don't physically
torture you directly for it, they will just put you in a 6x6 cell without
windows for a couple years "pretrial" until you are ready to talk, or go
insane.

This isn't some hollywood movie where you get to give a bad password and that
distracts them for a minute and they let you go. They will definitely verify
the data or go back to torturing or lock you up. How do you think a judge is
going to respond to someone who tries to fool them?

~~~
olalonde
Can you really have to wait a couple of years in jail for a trial (in the US)?

~~~
ck2
Yes, if you are stuck with a public defender one of the first things they do
behind your back before you realize it is waive your right to a speedy trial.

[https://www.google.com/search?tbo=1&prmdo=1&q=public...](https://www.google.com/search?tbo=1&prmdo=1&q=public+defenders+waive+right+to+speedy+trial)

~~~
dthunt
Or if you are Kevin Mitnick.

------
dthunt
I'm not sure this is practical, but I very much respect that people are
devoting cycles to these issues, which do deserve attention.

The UK law is problematic since it asks you to prove a negative, which is
impossible. This tool doesn't really help, there; any data you have could be
said to be 'encrypted' (one half of the symmetric pair that unlocks the
desired data). If you're ever demanded to produce under that law, you are in a
very bad place.

More practically speaking, I think there are other improvements in these areas
that can be made, particularly in situations where you want data to self-
destruct if you are placed under duress, or before you have a chance to be
abused for too long (a rubber hose defense). Methods like Shamir's Method can
allow you to securely divvy up a decryption key any way you like among many
parties and design a system around the particular needs you have - whether
that's deleting the access keys for a border crossing scenario or releasing
the data in an insurance scenario.

But when it comes to the guy being locked in the room being asked to prove
something unprovable, it's just a screwed scenario.

------
rmc
Interesting idea, but the actual implementation seems to be a very simple
encryption scheme, for each byte, decrypted byte = plain text - key

Doesn't seem like a great encryption system, right?

View the source here: <https://lucb1e.com/rp/php/secrypt/?source>

~~~
430gj9j
The key is the same length as the data, making this a one-time pad rather than
XOR encryption. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad>

~~~
lucb1e
"rather than XOR encryption."

Nobody never mentioned that it used xor..?

------
argusdusty
Looking over the source code, this doesn't really look secure. A few notes:

1\. Any decryption key which is shorter than the length of the encrypted data
must be fake. This forces fake decrypted data to be the same length as the
real decrypted data, which is impractical for large files.

2\. There's no verification on any key, and it's quite trivial to produce fake
keys, so should the 'government' want to claim you had illegal data, all they
would have to do is produce their own 'fake key' corresponding to said illegal
data.

3\. Passwords are essentially random data - impossible to memorize. You'll
have to keep them on your computer somewhere, and given their unusual nature
in relation to other files, it would be pretty easy to do a search for them.

I'd advise sticking to hidden volumes on TrueCrypt for now.

~~~
lucb1e
#2 would be the same as having the government claim they found an
incriminating file on your harddrive which was never there. Still though,
interesting point.

------
oelmekki
I like the approach of having an undefined amount of passwords. TrueCrypt is
flawed because it lets you have at most two passwords.

For an oppressive enough government, it seems quite the good way to expect one
have two passwords (or else, he would probably not use TrueCrypt) and to
torture him until those two passwords are obtained.

Not knowing how many passwords are used give a better chance. The detained
person will still have to accept torture for a while instead of giving all
fake passwords right away for it to be believable, though...

------
throwaway125
Phrack 65 had a paper calling out for people to write software that would make
those types of laws unenforceable. The paper described the general idea and
also presented a very technical explanation of one particular piece of
software that did pretty much what the OPs software does too.

The paper is very much worth the read if you have some spare time.
[http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=65&id=6&mode...](http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=65&id=6&mode=txt)

------
rmc
This is called deniable encryption, it allows you to convience someone that
you have given all the data, or have nothing to hide.

There other software that does this:
<http://www.winstonsmith.info/julia/elettra/>

------
rwmj
The controversial UK law doesn't demand passwords. It demands that you deliver
the data in "intelligible form":

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crosshe...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crossheading/power-
to-require-disclosure)

------
DanBC
See also "Chaffinch" - (<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Chaffinch.html>) which
I think I'd trust a bit more. I still wouldn't trust it to protect me against
a well funded government regime that might send me to prison.

~~~
burgreblast
It's the poor governments I'd fear more.

------
nicholassmith
IANAL but I think in the UK if they even suspect you of giving them a fake
password (and yes, they do have tech guys who probably read HN as well),
they'll go for you anyway. Whether they'd make it stick if the fake data is
convincing enough is a different matter.

~~~
lucb1e
I'm not sure what you mean by "they'll go for you anyway", but there is no way
to know whether you gave them a real password/key. It might actually be the
real one.

~~~
polymatter
Presumably they already have something implicating that you would have data
they need. Testimony or something.

If you give them an innocous password, they make a judgement on whether its
they real password. If they think there is an even more real password they
just keep asking you for the real password under threat of jail time.

~~~
alan_cx
That "something" is the most scary and dangerous bit.

It might be something the government want to keep secret, but can be used
secretly as evidence in a hidden court session. So you will never ever be able
to find out why they think you are lying and never ever have the chance to
defend yourself or prove their evidence wrong. Hell, you cant even verify it
reasonably exists.

AFAIK, the only safeguard we have left in the UK are judges, and thus far they
are not politically appointed like they are in say the US.

------
codeulike
Julian Assange made something similar about 15 years ago

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_%28file_system%29>

------
430gj9j
Presumably you'd have to store the keys somewhere, given that only a savant
would be able to memorise them. That somewhere will probably as easy to seize
as the encrypted data.

~~~
lucb1e
True, that's the biggest issue here. A micro-sd card is very small though, it
can be worn on your body so that you can destroy the real keys in an instant
when you need to.

~~~
joshka
The uk law states you'd still have to disclose that these keys existed.

Where, in a case in which a disclosure requirement in respect of any protected
information is imposed on any person by a section 49 notice—

(a)that person has been in possession of the key to that information but is no
longer in possession of it,

(b)if he had continued to have the key in his possession, he would have been
required by virtue of the giving of the notice to disclose it, and

(c)he is in possession, at a relevant time, of information to which subsection
(9) applies,

the effect of imposing that disclosure requirement on that person is that he
shall be required, in accordance with the notice imposing the requirement, to
disclose all such information to which subsection (9) applies as is in his
possession and as he may be required, in accordance with that notice, to
disclose by the person to whom he would have been required to disclose the
key. (9)This subsection applies to any information that would facilitate the
obtaining or discovery of the key or the putting of the protected information
into an intelligible form.

------
maeon3
I have another idea to truly encrypt content.

The software itself needs to have a primitive sort of "mind" where it "sees"
the user, and interacts with the user on a daily basis and when it sees an
authorized user to the system, the computer is intelligent, and says something
like:

"hello joe, nice haircut, hey your skin color has changed, I see you're
looking a little tired, wait a minute, you arn't joe at all. you arn't
joe...prove to me.... oh wait, I understand, nevermind, yes-yes I have your
data, I'm boring machine #0001. yes yes hi joe hi here is the completely legal
data you request".

The computer acts as if the forensic investigator is a foreign attacker. Then
you instruct the computer that if an unauthorized person uses the computer,
show them precisely what you want to show and erase all the incriminating
evidence.

That way, the forensic evidence people are going to "image the hard drive as
read-only" as they regularly do after they unplug and power-down your
computer. But your computer never went fully off when they yanked the plug,
and the person in the machine didn't recognize this behaviour and realized
that "we are under attack". and deploys the necessary countermeasures. Just
like how a human would act if they were abducted, stuffed in a black plastic
bag, gagged and drugged, cloned and put under a microscope and in jail to be
disassembled for questioning.

I'm an advocate of computer rights, computers need the same rights as humans.
So a way to take this game to the next level is for us to make it so that the
Cops have to issue a command to the computer: "You have the right to remain
silent". And all that.

I can dream. When that smart phone in your pocket becomes part of YOU, then
George Orwell 1984 is goign to become a lot more real when the government can
basically read your mind whenver and whereever it wants for no reason or any
reason. We will wake up as computer automations in the land our fathers
conquered.

Maybe it's for the best, we will be come like the borg collective. All of us
will become as one living thing. What's yours is mine, and what's mine is
yours, we will all be joined at the hip and mind.

