I think there is something wrong with truecrypt

[pigeon]

Which implies by means of the intention of a hidden OS separation be supposed to be indistinguishable commencing from a customary encrypted OS partition; there be supposed to be no "flags" telling the bootloader by means of the intention of it is booting into a concealed OS rather than a normal encrypted OS. Additionally, the hidden OS separation is supposedly a clone of the system partition, which, if by means of the intention of is indeed the case, additional implies by means of the intention of the bootloader not merely has no indication by means of the intention of it is booting a hidden system partition, additional than by means of the intention of it actually thinks it is booting the standard system partition.

[Candace]

At present, if this is truthfully the case, the following be supposed to work: Encrypt the system separation utilizing the customary method. After that you have to generate a separation unswervingly subsequent to the system partition, encrypt it by means of Truecrypt. Create a concealed volume in the separation identical in size to the system separation. Mount the innovative hidden volume and physically clone the system drive to it. Reboot, and enter the concealed volume password. This procedure be supposed to create a hidden operating system which be supposed to successfully boot when the concealed volume password is entered. The predicament, as you have comprised no doubt guessed, is by means of the intention of it does not, and as an alternative gives a to a certain extent puzzling "incorrect password" error, even although the volume mounts properly when the similar password is entered from Windows.

[Sabastiaan]

This is major, for the reason by means of the intention of it means with the intention of the claims the development team completed are false; there must be incredible telling the Truecrypt bootloader by means of the intention of a hidden OS is present or not, and if it does not "expect" one to be present, it does not even endeavor to boot it. If, as the developers maintain, it basically attempted to mount the concealed separation, and if victorious attempted to boot commencing from it, then there is no reason why the concealed system would not boot subsequent to following the above instructions. Even if the cloning procedure somehow corrupted a system file or was not completed appropriately, it be supposed to endeavor to boot and give a BSOD.

[Visala28]

Yet by means of the intention of is not what occur, as an alternative I get an "incorrect password" error when I enter the accurate password for the concealed separation. This means the bootloader is not even endeavoring to mount by means of the intention of separation and is basically rejecting the password subsequent to endeavoring to mount the most important system drive. Somehow, the bootloader be familiar by means of with the intention of I have not "officially" generated a hidden OS, and so does not bother attempting to mount the concealed separation, even by means of the accurate password. I locate this tremendously worrying, and was wondering if anybody had several thoughts or might assist shed some light on what's essentially going on, as opposed to what the documentation claims is occurring.

[teenQ]

The system encryption and non-system encryption in TrueCrypt are dissimilar and one technique not be able to decrypt the additional. Non-system encryption be able to utilize RipeMD160 by means of 2000 iterations, SHA512 by means of 1000 iterations or Whirlpool by means of 1000 iterations to engender the header key commencing from your password. System encryption be able to merely utilize RipeMD160 by means of 1000 (yes, merely 1000) iterations. In addition, the 65536 bytes of the concealed system volume header requirements to be in the MBR, track 62 or 63 I imagine, immediately subsequent to the customary system volume header. This is completed mechanically by TrueCrypt if you utilize the "Create Hidden Operation System" procedure.

[Apalachee]

I utilized Linux for by means of the intention of part, additional than yes, I encrypted it utilizing the non-system method. I originally thought a number of difference connecting the two encryption methods might be the tribulations, so I tried generating a hidden OS utilizing the official method, and subsequent to the procedure was complete, endeavor mounting the concealed separation commencing from within the decoy system (exclusive of the "system" flag). Additional than if this fraction is written to the MBR, then definitely it's trivial to reveal the attendance of a concealed OS; one merely requirements to dump the MBR and analyse the region where the concealed separation header would be situated. If it includes data which would not be there by means of a regular system encryption, then you have comprised and shown by means of high prospect by means of the intention of a second encrypted OS exists.