Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by sterlind on Sunday November 24, 2019 @09:10AM (#21620514)

IIRC the configuration that allows hidden volumes is distinguishable from the basic configuration, so they could tell if there's the potential for a hidden drive to exist. If so, they could assume the hidden container exists and throw you in jail if you don't produce a password that unlocks one.

If the format schemes are indistinguishable that's good news.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by faeyanpiraat on Sunday November 24, 2019 @09:46AM (#21620695)

If it is distinguishable, then it has no point.

If it is indistinguishable then you run the risk of losing data in the nested container if you copy enough data (accidentally) on the outer container.

Not sure which is the case with veracrypt though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by ikeboy on Sunday November 24, 2019 @11:44AM (#21621507)

It's indistinguishable but there's a way to put in both passwords while using the outer container so it prevents overwriting the inner one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by aasasd on Sunday November 24, 2019 @03:22PM (#21623078)

IIRC free space on the outer volume has to be continuous―normally at the end of the fs. I.e. the volume will look like it's not used too extensively. Which I guess may or may not look suspicious depending on your claimed use-case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by vorpalhex on Sunday November 24, 2019 @11:13AM (#21621265)

The recommended practice is multiple hidden volumes. "Oh no, you made me decrypt this volume that contains inappropriate photos!"

[ Parent | on HN ]