Joined: Jan 10, Posts: Either of those hashes should be fine. SHA is probably the one most vulnerable simply because so much attention has been paid to the other SHA- hashes but really either should be fine imo.
I will stick to whirlpool, I don't trust the NSA much. Carver , Jan 11, Joined: Jun 23, Posts: The hashing algorithm selected is only used as a pseudorandom function and, as far as I know, is not used to actually hash a value for later use or to otherwise encrypt data. Which TrueCrypt Algorithm is the safest? This is probably overkill though. What's the name of this windows feature? I updated my CentOS 7 system. Why does AWS recommend against public S3 buckets? How can I stop the Windows Recovery Environment being used as a back door?
How can I check if IP is a Tor exit node? How to use docker secrets without a swarm cluster? Rijndael won the AES competition primarily because it's the fastest and easiest to implement in hardware, not because it's the most "secure. And of course, encrypting with multiple algorithms will be even more "secure," but will reduce the speed even further. Again, they're all rock-solid, so my advice would be to just go with whichever is fastest on your machine usually AES.
Although there are some dangers in cascading multiple ciphers together, Truecrypt appears to deal with them as best it can. It doesn't add any known plaintexts to the output of the first cipher and it uses indepentant keys for each so by chaining the different algorithms together it should increase the security. I would stear clear of 3DES though. Having read the Truecrypt page listing the choices of algorithm it doesn't even list triple DES so they may have recently removed it.
I've read that chaining algorithms together may result in weaker security due to the algorithm used to follow one with the other. I would recommend either Rijndael AES or Serpent and if you want it to be secure: the most crucial element is the key so make a very long key with at least one of each set of upper and lower case, number and symbol characters. You can conceivably use a shorter pass word if you are using keyfiles, and if you are not worried about performance hits, using AES Twofish and Serpent will cause much headache to those trying to get into the encrypted material.
But also don't overlook that you can also take one encrypted file and place it on the inside of a larger encrypted file. In this way, you can "allow" your attackers to look at the outside container and let them think they have the entire container.
When in fact, they don't have anything at all. Feel free to put something slightly shady in the outside file, but nothing that would actually cause you problems. I think a slew of pornographic photos would fit this bill nicely, here is something that someone would want to hide, and as such, you have a nice reason. The outside container does not reveal that the inside container even exists.
Place your actual material inside the inner container. Even better is to make the outside container "weak" with an insufficient password, and no keyfile. Let your attackers think they broke your encryption, and shrug your shoulders and say, "Damn, you are good, you have me dead to rights.
Best public cryptanalysis for each, assuming bit variants higher time complexity is better, but all kinds of caveats :. Undoubtedly, 3DES is the least secure, but that doesn't necessarily make it insecure barring the usual unpublished backdoor concern.
However I would avoid it. All of the other algorithms are generally considered secure. Determining the presence of an intentionally placed backdoor in any of them likely requires Snowden to release more documents. And honestly, if any of the top 3 did have a backdoor, that would be an absolute bombshell revelation.
Given his track record, I'm personally happy to assume that they're still secure. The Serpent cipher was one of them, garnering high security kudus, but eventually becoming a runner-up, to the Rijndael cipher.
While this took place a few years ago it provides a fascinating glimpse into electronic data encryption and the trade-offs between performance and security. Interestingly, performance won! In comparison with the other five candidates, Serpent cipher had the highest safety factor 3. Rijndael had a safety factor of 1. For encryption algorithms, you should use a cascade. AES is quite weak compared to other algorithms but is the fastest and is the industry standard therefore will be effective as an outer layer.
Twofish is even stronger and after decrypting the AES layer, there will be another layer Twofish which is even stronger. Serpent is the strongest and this cascade proves effective. Some extra info: For passwords, the NSA has a quantum computer that can decrypt very quickly. I would recommend a minimum of 40 letters, lowercase and uppercase, numbers, symbols and no dictionary words or personal information birth dates etc.
If you are at risk from an adversary, use the plausible deniability features built into TrueCrypt. First, it's not said that AES is unbreakable, merely that none of the currently known attacks reduce the computational cost to a point where it's feasible. That's about half of the annual electricity consumption of Norway. Actually computing an AES round takes several times that much energy.
Twofish is a symmetric key block cipher with a block size of bits and key sizes up to bits. It was one of the five finalists of the Advanced Encryption Standard contest, but it was not selected for standardization. Twofish is related to the earlier block cipher Blowfish. Twofish's distinctive features are the use of pre-computed key-dependent S-boxes, and a relatively complex key schedule. One half of an n-bit key is used as the actual encryption key and the other half of the n-bit key is used to modify the encryption algorithm key-dependent S-boxes.
Twofish has a Feistel structure like DES.
0コメント