News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker?. Parent comment

Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by ColinDabritz on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @07:07PM (#7813554)
Wouldn't they just have to published a signed message stating that the change was not theirs and the key is compromised? Or better yet, revoke the key?

If two groups with opposing messages control the key, it's pretty clear that the key is compromised in some manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by tghw on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @08:22PM (#7813886)
If 7.2 is part of the hoax, then they would be signing with a compromised key. This would be evidence, but would not be conclusive.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by monokrome on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @07:35PM (#7813696)
No, because the suggested "hackers" have published a signed message.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by hamburglar on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @08:21PM (#7813884)
Doesn't matter. Publish another message signed with the same key saying "this key is compromised."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker? by jcrawfordor on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @08:24PM (#7813890)
> If two groups with opposing messages control the key, it's pretty clear that the key is compromised in some manner.
[ Parent | on HN ]