From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4096F99 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.148.112]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1950F14E for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245]) by punt24.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w0D6BGFw079928; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:16 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0D6BDon065958 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:14 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 620E040115; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BECDA20734; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:11:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:11:12 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: nullius , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20180113061112.GA14217@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20180109011335.GA22039@savin.petertodd.org> <274aad5c-4573-2fdd-f8b0-c6c2d662ab7c@gibsonic.org> <20180112095058.GA9175@savin.petertodd.org> <3b45c17a256326b6b183587d9d15690c@nym.zone> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 8fc50938-f828-11e7-9f3b-9cb654bb2504 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdwEUElQaAgsB Am4bW1JeUVx7WGY7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUwUcB251 WUAeVBx7cg0IeXxy Y0IsViYIWURzdk5g FEZWHXAHZDJndWlJ UxJFflAGdgZOLE1H b1B7GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYBxR SxwWLFgWTA4nEzg9 ThoDGTQzDAVFfShh ZycvNlkHHEcVO08p eUAsUkgVL31aEQ1X BUxBSDdDJkcIWydj Dg5LFVUVEDBYTGY0 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Plausible Deniability (Re: Satoshilabs secret shared private key scheme) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:11:18 -0000 --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 03:44:03AM +0000, nullius via bitcoin-dev wrote: > (I think that next, I may start writing my disks with headers for LUKS, > which I do not use...) >=20 > Whereupon, I challenge plausible deniability designers to `dd` a 6TB disk > with pseudorandom bytes, then try walking it across the U.S. border until= it > gets searched. What could possibly go wrong? Should you be ordered to > decrypt it, the disk *could* be *plausibly* filled with pseudorandom byte= s; > and you would not be committing the crime of lying to an officer, when you > truly state that in fact, it *is* filled with pseudorandom bytes. It's very common for disks to be filled with pseudorandom data; this is not suspicious at all. For example: 1) An encrypted partition that is filled, and later reformatted, will be le= ft full of random bytes. Even if you give border security your passphrase, the unused space in the encrypted partition will be random data. (an exception being most - but not all! - SSD's where TRIM has been used) 2) Modern drives (SSD and HD) often implement fast secure erasure with encryption, which means that the actual data stored to disk or FLASH is *always* encrypted. If such a drive is wiped, the encryption keys are repla= ced, which means whatever data was stored becomes random noise (the encrypted da= ta is usually not authenticated). This also means that such drives can arrive = =66rom the factory filled with random noise. 3) Software disk encryption schemes have the same property: reformatting results in a drive filled with random noise. The latter is particularly interesting with LUKS, as you can do all kinds of things like erase the drive with luksErase, while keeping a backup of the L= UKS header elsewhere. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaWaL8AAoJECSBQD2l8JH7f5UIAK7uvIP8f9PuJGWFzo1El4EN yqQtD5JjKxUwPc9TJQB000tGPAxpMH+Er+IKOBAF464tBwIJdXy4iJwUly+9olGD 1To/OaNrLoF1TIveXKpkAJJuaMDjoZePcV/DXbjCs+depRQRy7e9bzlo8IifVsNm 7b+J1QPDsVP8rHciLNljL2vBqMnmSpejuz5QrkCs5mO0wC7Ko9CAjN9lGG7m7gfq R1N4OxXW9UNo2fhigh3JL9Jb6nXUrHU4PWz3+6exXsFHKx12V+tkWaYwPoBBZlHA KjrH6xBnOnTvQeSYTTJxY957jTT+wt0Y0AhVFMN+4CP3/gw6xNwXaITo90ZqZ9I= =n4n7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--