Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

cryptome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#41

Post by necubi »

Are we all just going to take this seriously? It's pretty obviously a fake. Just look at the names at the end. Detective Laughlin Foo? Stu Pitt? Neither of which, incidentally, return anything in google aside from this presentation. There's also a clear divergence in style on the backdoor slides, and it reads like a parody.

But the most obvious problem: if the NSA or whoever had a backdoor to truecrypt and Android and iOS, they would not send that information to a local DA office to be leaked.

Please don't set aside critical thinking just because something confirms your biases.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#42

Post by [deleted] »

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #11

A few gems in here besides the TrueCrypt statement, mainly that Apple iCloud and Dropbox are named, and the legal framework is touched upon. All cloud stored content are automatically hash-scanned and image-analyzed by their service providers and infringing content reported to NCMEC (p16) Mobile content are automatically scanned when they are synced with cloud storage like Apple iCloud or Dropbox. Mobile devices that…

[deleted]

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#43

Post by nine_k »

bilbo0s wrote: post #33
nwh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed a big one there. Mobile devices that are not cloud-synced can be accessed by their respective vendors Essentially; iOS and Android have a remote backdoor available to the US government.

Yep... I was thinking... "Wow... why is this guy worried about Dropbox?" The Dropbox problem is solvable... just don't use Dropbox. But how are you going to use a phone without using iOS or Android. (All of the other mobile OSes are probably backdoored as well)

I wonder if my next pone should be Mozila-based.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#44

Post by DannyBee »

nitrogen wrote: post #5

Page 16 has some wonderful lines: • “Fruit of the poisonous tree” can be circumvented • The use of backdoors cannot be detected or proven • Vendors are legally and commercially prevented from acknowledging their backdoors. Defense will not be able to prove their existence • The files can be described as “forensically obtained”

This is of course, completely false in every way. No prosecutor would ever be dumb enough to say any of this.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#45

Post by DannyBee »

fluidcruft wrote: post #21
nitrogen wrote: post #5

Page 16 has some wonderful lines: • “Fruit of the poisonous tree” can be circumvented • The use of backdoors cannot be detected or proven • Vendors are legally and commercially prevented from acknowledging their backdoors. Defense will not be able to prove their existence • The files can be described as “forensically obtained”

...but how is the prosecution able to prove the files exist on someone's device if they don't have to disclose how they determined that the files were present? If all they have to do is assert that the files exist and were "forensically obtained" then why bother with the backdoor in the first place?

They are required to disclose everything. This slide reads like it was written by someone whose knowledge of criminal procedure comes from TV.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#46

Post by coin »

peter_l_downs wrote: post #3

Worth mentioning that truecrypt volumes can be hidden inside playable video files. Yes, it's security through obscurity, but hey, it makes me feel a little safer. http://keyj.emphy.de/real-steganography-with-truecrypt/

The file size will far exceed the normal size of the video - easily detectable.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#47

Post by thejosh »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #29

The reference to the names "Detective Stu Pitt" and "Detective Laughlin Foo" on the last page has me wondering about this. They both really, really sound like joke names. The similarity to the presenter's name (first slide) from the real North Dakota State Attorney's Association (NDSAA) presentation ( http://www.ndsaa.org/Computer_Forensics_for_Prosecutors.pdf ) also seems suspicious. It has the look that somebody to…

took less than an hour for the hoax to be revealed.. :)

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#48

Post by DannyBee »

na85 wrote: post #7
andrewpi wrote: post #2

Wouldn't any backdoor used in a criminal prosecution have to be disclosed to the defense?

Scroll down a bit; all they have to disclose is that the files "were forensically obtained."

This is entirely false. For gods sake, you have to put lab technicians on the stand for cross examination when they test your blood.

For something like this, a report gets written, and the person who wrote it gets cross examined.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#49

Post by tylerkahn »

necubi wrote: post #41

Are we all just going to take this seriously? It's pretty obviously a fake. Just look at the names at the end. Detective Laughlin Foo? Stu Pitt? Neither of which, incidentally, return anything in google aside from this presentation. There's also a clear divergence in style on the backdoor slides, and it reads like a parody. But the most obvious problem: if the NSA or whoever had a backdoor to truecrypt and Android an…

Incessantly cynical distrust of the government is the new blind patriotism.

Re: "Forensics for Prosecutors" mentions backdoor in TrueCrypt (page 15) [pdf]

#50

Post by DannyBee »

If you use the link to the last year's presentation on the last page, and download it, you can see last year's presentation was made by "micah smith" (who apparently has become "michael smith" this year).

The entire presentation is clearly a copy of the previous year presentation, with some words changed by some moron with an agenda whose understanding of criminal procedure came from watching too many law and order episodes.

Post reply on HN