Do you encrypt your hard drives/storage devices, /g/? LUKS header

>>47052092
Who would want to hack into your hentai folders faggot?

>>47052271
I do.

>>47052271
Wtf why did I quote that post

>>47052173
No because I'm not a pedophile or terrorist.

>>47052296
Is this seriously what people think? Do you not care about your own privacy?

>>47052306
Nobody cares about your essay on anonmoose or whatever boring shit is on your PC, not even the NSA

File: hahahaohwhy.jpg (46KB, 560x432px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 560x432px

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/online-privacy-nihilism-runs-rampant-in-us-survey-says/

>The study said that those who haven't taken any or few steps are those confident the surveillance "is serving the public interest." Others simply said "they are not concerned about the surveillance programs," Pew Research found.

>>47052296
THIS. I have nothing to hide.

>>47052382
Is that so? Then post your full name, address, phone number, and social security number.

File: 1423788000262.png (99KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x500px

>camellia
>whirlpool
Fucking cryptography hipsters.

>>47052398
>doxxing yourself on 4chan is the same as your data being stored without anyone ever seeing it in a secret government database
Stop using retarded arguments

>>47052415
I can't say anything about Camellia, but what's wrong with Whirlpool?

>>47052472
>without anyone ever seeing it
Yeah, okay bud. So, you're comfortable with NSA making a full profile of your life and giving said data to FVEY?

I do on my laptop
I use ubuntu because I keep fucking up manually doing LUKS+LVM with arch

>>47052504
No im not, but encrypting shit and wasting my time on something that doesnt affect me because im not a criminal is stupid and paranoid

>>47052173
>inb4 HURR nothing to-
oh
too late

>>47052544
No, you're just stupid.
It does affect in every way possible.

I used to encrypt the two flash drives I own that have a copy of what remains of my 4chan folder and stuff but I went from duo 8GB flash drives to 16 then 32 and didn't want to be fucked buying two pairs of 64GB ones to replace my current two 32GB ones so I just uploaded the .txt file containing my passwords to my mega account as well as uploading all really personal stuff I had. Still have personal stuff that tell who I am on the internet on my flash drives among the porn and my modest archive of shit but it's no longer like, extensive lists of conversations I've had and the names of my friends so nothing would be too fucked if someone were to discover them. It's pretty okay. I'd go for full encryption if I didn't already leave my identify liable to being compromised from being an irresponsible dumbass on the net to a few people.

>>47052544

Have you ever heard of or read about a structure known as the "Panopticon"?

I just use TrueCrypt.

LUKS header information for /dev/sdb1

Version:        1
Cipher name:    aes
Cipher mode:    xts-plain64:sha512
Hash spec:      sha1
Payload offset: 4096
MK bits:        512

>>47054363
>SHA1
Why?

>>47054414

>>47052382

>>47054488
That doesn't make any sense. You're already encrypting your partition, might as well use something that isn't proven to be broken.

LUKS header information for /dev/sdb3

Version:        1
Cipher name:    aes
Cipher mode:    xts-plain64
Hash spec:      sha1
Payload offset: 4096
MK bits:        256

Arch defaults from a while ago.

>>47052173
What is that anime??

I do on my main computers with FileVault 2.

Want to do the same for my Debian home server. Do you really need to reformat the drive? There's no in-place encryption like OS X?

>>47054266
is Truecrypt still safe?

>>47054945
Phase I of the audit on version 7.1a has been completed and no major vulnerabilities have been found. I'd trust it more than any of the open-source for that reason alone.

>>47054967
Who conducted the audit though? and what if that company said it has no vulnerabilities because the NSA wanted them to?

>>47054993
https://opencryptoaudit.org/reports/

http://istruecryptauditedyet.com/

No, because:
1. I know full well that the NSA wouldn't give a shit what's on my hard drive.
2. Hard drive encryption reduces read/write performance.

I have no reason to encrypt my drives, so why would I?

>>47055014

If it's a laptop, you could lose it somehow.

>>47055095
I'm not concerned if some random stranger finds my furry porn, it's not like I keep credit card numbers and passwords on my harddrive.

File: truecryptlogo.png (140KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 512x512px

>>47054967
What encryption algorithm is best on TrueCrypt? does it even matter?

>>47055795
Use straight up AES-256. The others aren't more secure, but they are more slow.

These encryption algorithms are really robust, and it's the implementation of them that's the problem. Truecrypt 7.1a is a solid implementation.
Avoid 7.2

>>47055014
>I know full well that the NSA wouldn't give a shit what's on my hard drive.
Actually the NSA does give a shit about what's on your hard drive- that's the entire fucking problem.

>>47054993
Might as well turn off your computer now and stop using electronics at all if you're this paranoid. This isn't actually the worst idea in the world. It's a good idea if you care about say, the 4th amendment.
You can read the audit.

File: Bank.jpg (13KB, 590x24px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 590x24px

>>47052296
>>47052382
Banks must have something to hide then?

>>47055795
Serpent with Whirlpool.

>>47055981
Twofish-Serpent*

If you don't have FDE with dm-crypt (no LUKS) and USB boot device that auto ejects, then you don't know SHIT about encryption / OPSEC.

 ~ » lsblk
NAME   MAJ:MIN RM  SIZE RO TYPE  MOUNTPOINT
sda      8:0    0 74.5G  0 disk  
└─root 254:0    0 74.5G  0 crypt /

My SSD is completely indistinguishable from random data because it doesn't have LUKS headers.