privacyguides
/
privacytools.io
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 304 Pull Requests 47 Activity

New section - Hard disk/Filesystem Encryption #152

New Issue
Closed
opened 2017-01-04 16:31:08 +00:00 by p43b1 · 22 comments
p43b1 commented 2017-01-04 16:31:08 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Privacytools.io could suggest using the Linux Unified Key Setup or LUKS to encrypt internal/external hard drives and usb thumb drives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup

Privacytools.io could suggest using the Linux Unified Key Setup or LUKS to encrypt internal/external hard drives and usb thumb drives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup
👍 3
ghost commented 2017-01-04 16:33:17 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
  1. VeraCrypt
2. VeraCrypt
👍 3
loganmarchione commented 2017-01-08 03:07:21 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I have the code for this, but didn't create a branch for https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/156 (I commited to master), so I can't create a PR until that PR is closed.

I have the code for this, but didn't create a branch for https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/156 (I commited to master), so I can't create a PR until that PR is closed.
Atavic commented 2017-02-07 23:15:42 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
  1. Gostcrypt
3. [Gostcrypt](https://www.gostcrypt.org/gostcrypt.php)
2E0PGS commented 2018-01-04 09:31:11 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

VeraCrypt I can vouch for.

Also you can use PGP to encrypt files:
Keybase.io also have a PGP encrypted file sharing service. Also they have PGP encrypted git repos.

Most Linux have disk encryption options. Also Android too. You have to decrypt the home folder on boot time.

VeraCrypt I can vouch for. Also you can use PGP to encrypt files: Keybase.io also have a PGP encrypted file sharing service. Also they have PGP encrypted git repos. Most Linux have disk encryption options. Also Android too. You have to decrypt the home folder on boot time.
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-28 16:05:44 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Veracrypt and luks would seem like good options, I know also that veracrypt is audited.
@nitrohorse , would you have time to make a PR for this?

Veracrypt and luks would seem like good options, I know also that veracrypt is audited. @nitrohorse , would you have time to make a PR for this?
nitrohorse commented 2019-08-28 16:07:42 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I believe we already mention VeraCrypt and LUKS 👍🏼 https://www.privacytools.io/software/encryption-tools/#encrypt

I believe we already mention VeraCrypt and LUKS 👍🏼 https://www.privacytools.io/software/encryption-tools/#encrypt
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-28 18:20:38 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

So can this issue be closed?

So can this issue be closed?
Mikaela commented 2019-08-28 18:33:24 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

https://www.privacytools.io/software/encryption-tools/ - I guess so.

https://www.privacytools.io/software/encryption-tools/ - I guess so.
👍 1
beerisgood commented 2019-08-28 18:51:46 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Also Bitlocker for Windows

Also Bitlocker for Windows
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-28 19:01:44 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

We already list veracrypt, no need to list Microsoft's closed source alternative.

We already list veracrypt, no need to list Microsoft's closed source alternative.
beerisgood commented 2019-08-28 19:09:59 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

@blacklight447-ptio well, Bitlocker works better with Windows 10 & uEfi then VeraCrypt.
Also it's native available - but only for Pro and higher version

@blacklight447-ptio well, Bitlocker works better with Windows 10 & uEfi then VeraCrypt. Also it's native available - but only for Pro and higher version
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 10:45:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source. Bitlocker does not fall over it. plus the requirement to have an more expensive windows license for it makes me weary to recommend it.

I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source. Bitlocker does not fall over it. plus the requirement to have an more expensive windows license for it makes me weary to recommend it.
2E0PGS commented 2019-08-29 10:47:49 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

No mention of phone encryption still however. Suggest using Android's encryption.

⁣Cheers,

On 29 Aug 2019, 11:45, at 11:45, blacklight447 notifications@github.com wrote:

I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require
software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case
there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source. Bitlocker
does not fall over it. plus the requirement to have an more expensive
windows license for it makes me weary to recommend it.

--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/152#issuecomment-526131562

No mention of phone encryption still however. Suggest using Android's encryption. ⁣Cheers, On 29 Aug 2019, 11:45, at 11:45, blacklight447 <notifications@github.com> wrote: >I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require >software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case >there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source. Bitlocker >does not fall over it. plus the requirement to have an more expensive >windows license for it makes me weary to recommend it. > >-- >You are receiving this because you commented. >Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: >https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/152#issuecomment-526131562
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 10:48:59 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

to my knowledge, all phones encrypt by default for a few years now, same story for IOS.

to my knowledge, all phones encrypt by default for a few years now, same story for IOS.
2E0PGS commented 2019-08-29 10:50:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Android isn't by default in my experience.

⁣--
Peter Stevenson (2E0PGS)
http://www.m3pgs.co.uk​

On 29 Aug 2019, 11:49, at 11:49, blacklight447 notifications@github.com wrote:

to my knowledge, all phones encrypt by default for a few years now,
same story for IOS.

--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/152#issuecomment-526132599

Android isn't by default in my experience. ⁣-- Peter Stevenson (2E0PGS) http://www.m3pgs.co.uk​ On 29 Aug 2019, 11:49, at 11:49, blacklight447 <notifications@github.com> wrote: >to my knowledge, all phones encrypt by default for a few years now, >same story for IOS. > >-- >You are receiving this because you commented. >Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: >https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/152#issuecomment-526132599
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 10:51:46 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

google says its the default since android 5.0:https://source.android.com/security/encryption/full-disk

google says its the default since android 5.0:https://source.android.com/security/encryption/full-disk
dawidpotocki commented 2019-08-29 10:56:23 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source.

VeraCrypt is not free, it is a combination of source-available code and
code under Apache 2.0.

> I know, but we generally tend to follow the model: we don't require software to be opensource if there is no alternative, in this case there is: veracrypt, thus we require it to be open source. VeraCrypt is not free, it is a combination of source-available code and code under Apache 2.0.
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 11:55:38 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Well yes, but I meant open source, not fsf free

Well yes, but I meant open source, not fsf free
dawidpotocki commented 2019-08-29 12:10:28 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Well yes, but I meant open source, not fsf free

Still not open source and they pretty much mean the same thing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131029185711/http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html

> Well yes, but I meant open source, not fsf free Still not open source and they pretty much mean the same thing. https://web.archive.org/web/20131029185711/http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 14:05:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

What part of veracrypt has no aviable source?

What part of veracrypt has no aviable source?
dawidpotocki commented 2019-08-29 19:40:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

What part of veracrypt has no aviable source?

There is source, but you can't do "whatever you want", this part is
coming from TrueCrypt, which VeraCrypt forked.

https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2008-10/msg00055.html
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=364034
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html

> What part of veracrypt has no aviable source? There is source, but you can't do "whatever you want", this part is coming from TrueCrypt, which VeraCrypt forked. https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2008-10/msg00055.html https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=364034 https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html
blacklight447 commented 2019-08-29 19:42:00 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

i know, but its what i meant, its opens source, we can see how it runs and compile it yourself, you just cant do everything you want with it.

i know, but its what i meant, its opens source, we can see how it runs and compile it yourself, you just cant do everything you want with it.
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
master
dependabot/bundler/nokogiri-1.13.6
dependabot/bundler/addressable-2.8.0
freddy-m-patch-3
pr-add_RemoveMyPhone_sponsor
pr-browser_cleanup_1257_1328_1430
freddy-m-patch-2
freddy-m-patch-1
pr-vpn_hated_one_video
cdn
update-nitrohorse-image
promote-metager-to-card
hardware
pr-add_azirevpn
pr-add_mailfence
shop
1673
pr/1658
i18n-simple
sponsorship-edits-nov2019
i18n
ipfs
blacklight447-ptio-patch-3
blog
remove-windows-icons
pr/1147
i18n-testing
add-beautify
Labels
Clear labels   
🔍🤖 Search Engines

   
approved

approved, waiting for a PR

  
dependencies

Pull requests that update a dependency file

  
duplicate

   
feedback wanted

   
high priority

   
I2P

The Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

  
iOS

   
low priority

   
OS

Operating Systems

  
Self-contained networks

   
Social media

   
stale

A label for stalebot if it gets added

  
streaming

Anything related to media streaming.

  
todo

   
Tor

Anything covering the Tor network

  
WIP

active work in progress, do not merge or PR (yet)!

  
wontfix

Issues or bugs that will not be fixed and/or do not have significant impact on the project.

  
XMPP

Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol

  
[m]

Matrix protocol

  
₿ cryptocurrency

   
ℹ️ help wanted

   
↔️ file sharing

   
⚙️ web extensions

Browser Extension related issues

  
✨ enhancement

   
❌ software removal

   
💬 discussion

   
🤖 Android

   
🐛 bug

   
💢 conflicting

   
📝 correction

Correction of content on the website

  
🆘 critical

   
📧 email

   
🔒 file encryption

   
📁 file storage

   
🦊 Firefox

Firefox & forks, about:config etc.

  
💻 hardware

   
🌐 hosting

   
🏠 housekeeping

Anything primarily related to site cleanup.

  
🔐 password managers

   
🧰 productivity tools

   
🔎 research required

   
🌐 Social News Aggregators

   
🆕 software suggestion

   
👥 team chat

   
🔒 VPN

Virtual Private Network

  
🌐 website issue

*Technical* issues with the website.

  
🚫 Windows

   
👁️ browsers

   
🖊️ digital notebooks

   
🗄️ DNS

Domain Name System

  
🗨️ instant messaging (im)

   
🇦🇶 translations

Anything covering a translated version of the site

No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#152
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?