From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Mo0Nx-00050q-Vm for dm-crypt@saout.de; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:49 +0200 Received: from p4fd566a0.dip.t-dialin.net ([79.213.102.160]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:49 +0200 Received: from Mario.Holbe by p4fd566a0.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:49 +0200 From: Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:28 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20090914205644.GB4432@tansi.org> <20090915200808.2DD0F4250006@tansi.org> <20090915203239.GA29294@tansi.org> Sender: news Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] cryptsetup, LUKS, plausible deniability List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de Arno Wagner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:04:24PM +0100, Sarah Dean wrote: >> There's no incentive to hand over your keys, since it won't achieve (or >> stop) anything. > True. But how does plausible deniability factor into > your comment? If you are that hard, you can just use > ordinary encryption and refuse to give the keys. That's wrong. With plausible deniability you (or your companions) don't need to be so hard as you need to be without. Since with p.d. you can be *sure* your torture will not stop just because you give them one more key (because you cannot proof it was the last, it wouldn't be plausible deniable then), giving them more doesn't give you a benefit. Without p.d. it gives you a benefit to tell them more. Thus, without p.d. you need to be harder not to tell your secrets: torture would be over then. regards Mario -- Ho ho ho! I am Santa Claus of Borg. Nice assimilation all together!