VeraCrypt Lite

Topics: Feature Requests
Jan 11, 2015 at 2:33 PM
VeraCrypt Lite

Due to requests by users or possible competitors wishing to reduce the security in VeraCrypt and in an effort to retain VeraCrypt's reputation, I would like to suggest there is a separate version of VeraCrypt for these people.

For me personally and I believe this was also Mounir's original intention, VeraCrypt should remain a no compromise application with regards to security. VeraCrypt was a crypto geeks ideal solution and an example to other projects to aspire to.

The new accepted option to weaken the iteration count introduces unnecessary code, exposes users to possible exploits or potential bugs as with any additional feature. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about password length compensating for the reduced count.

It seems this request is made by inexperienced, impatient users or those with no real need for the level of security currently offered by VeraCrypt.

Rather than employing a weaker, more suitable application, these users demand that VeraCrypt has to be reduced to the level of other products. True geeks will question if there is an alternative motive to the request, as the number of members asking for it is only actually a tiny percentage of the whole user base. These "users" could easily be the work of 1 or 2 individuals or rival team.

Paranoia aside, there is also the reputation of VeraCrypt to consider. As these users are clearly impatient, not security aware or even have a need for this level of security they are more likely to make mistakes, choose poor passwords or be generally less secure in all areas.

Obviously these users will be a liability to VeraCrypts reputation and good standing. In order to retain VeraCrypts position as a no compromise security solution I suggest a separate build.

This crippled build should be speed orientated as this seems to be the main concern amongst these users. However it is only fair and responsible that there are many pop up windows to warn the user they are running a lite version during operation.

In an effort to save extra workload for Mounir, I suggest this lite version is only built every 6 months. As there is no need for security in this build users have no real need to constantly upgrade as with the full version.

By separating the crippled version from the full version we can retain VeraCrypt's reputation amongst crypto geeks and keep the detractors happy with a lite version.
Jan 11, 2015 at 3:03 PM
hi

support the proposal to create another version of veracrypt lite that would help resolve internal conflict in part on users veracrypt
what buscararia create this proposal is to separate the normal users advanced users or experienced

and each user can choose the version that suits them without affecting the safety of the complete version or the lite version
Jan 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM
rodrigo1996 wrote:
hi

support the proposal to create another version of veracrypt lite that would help resolve internal conflict in part on users veracrypt
what buscararia create this proposal is to separate the normal users advanced users or experienced

and each user can choose the version that suits them without affecting the safety of the complete version or the lite version
Have you seen the other proposals in the link below?

https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/577023#post1340821
Jan 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM
Enigma2Illusion wrote:
Have you seen the other proposals in the link below?
I believe rodrigo1996 is clearly fully aware of the issue.

Rather than point him to a selected post of yours, it would have been more honest to direct him to the thread in general.

Ignore the detractors rodrigo1996, you are right, others will follow.
Jan 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM
Well, I agree on some points, but why bother about a "less secure" build of VC(Lite)? I will agree to (and support) this, only if it will not take the dev time from the "real" VC. If the users dont need security, there is many other posibillitys to "protect" your data (TC, Bitlocker, Diskcrypter and mabye when ChiperShed is ready).
Jan 11, 2015 at 5:15 PM
I agree with you entirely destrukt, this request is an effort to silence those who demand speed over security.

Mounir spends a disproportionate time answering users who are prepared to trade security for speed. He has to write many replies explaining why reducing the iterations is a bad idea only to have another unaware user post the same request days later.

I am all for a variable iteration count, one where the only option is to increase from the current default NOT decrease.

As you say, there are many alternatives to VeraCrypt which begs the question why these people would prefer to spend time nagging to reduce the security in VeraCrypt rather than simply use something else ?

I hope VeraCrypt remains true to its original goal, 100% no compromise on security.

VeraCrypt is "special" it appeals to geeks and those with real security needs. It is not just another security application, it is more important than that.
Jan 11, 2015 at 6:04 PM
L0ck wrote:
I hope VeraCrypt remains true to its original goal, 100% no compromise on security.
In this "world" I don't like the word "hope" - VC is in my eyes, at the moment THE only SW "out there" to use for data encryption. Let us please keep it that way, and let VC lead "all the others" down the road of SECURE encryption.

In my opinion(like yours), VC need to be 100% no compromise on the security aspect.
Jan 14, 2015 at 12:05 AM
destrukt wrote:
In my opinion(like yours), VC need to be 100% no compromise on the security aspect.
.
Well destrukt my friend, Mounir is going to hold firm to his principles and NOT weaken VeraCrypt full version. So VeraCrypt is still 100% no compromise on security :)

The security minded users can relax, Mounir didn't let us down.