Does anyone actually trust these products? Always seemed like a terrible idea to me. The correct solution is to use free software cryptography on top of these things.
I've been required to use similar products due to government regulations. Personally I never trusted them, and I would have loved to take 15 minutes poking around in them, but it was the government who mandated their use for their data so ultimately it was out of my hands.
The overwhelming majority of people who use USB sticks for things are likely aware of security and the concept of encryption. But the idea of being able to use “free software cryptography on top” may as well be a trip to Mars.
Most "normies" I know think that open source cryptography is less secure because it's "open" (if they even know open source cryptography is a thing at all). No amount of trying to explain to them how more eyes on the source code generally equals safer encryption will sway most of them in the slightest.
>The correct solution is to use free software cryptography on top of these things.
If implemented correctly, "hardware" encryption can be more secure than "free software cryptography". The most obvious benefit is protection against brute-attacks, which you can't meaningfully implement with software. Not to mention added protection of biometric authentication as a second factor, compared to typing a password into a possibly untrusted machine.
“Correctly” is a big caveat. Almost no HW implementation is auditable in any way.
My baseline assumption is that even the good commercial products are only secure from a casual attacker, not TLAs. Anything safe from TLAs is what’s being sold only to them.
Software is insecure in many scenarios because endpoint security is abysmal. Of course, a USB stick with fingerprint reader cannot be secure but there is no way around hardware-based cryptography with independent key entry if you need real security. Then again, this won't help you if the secrets are transferred to the insecure endpoint anyway.
How much hardware and even software that is supposedly used for encryption is actually backdoored?
We know that Microsoft's bitlocker had at least one backdoor. Lenovo's fingerprint USB also has backdoors.
It seems like only open source solutions actually provide encryption, like LUKS and Veracrypt. Then again, who guarantees that the executables are actually build from the source? Or that the keys aren't somehow sent over to agencies by the operating system?
TLDR, we cannot realistically trust anything in this dictatorship of mass surveillance.
>We know that Microsoft's bitlocker had at least one backdoor
Source? The closest I found was microsoft's key escrow system, but that's hardly a "backdoor" given it's publicly documented, and it's explicitly stated in no uncertain terms when you're setting it up[1]
Didn't expect something this crazy but I will not trust stuff like this until I've seen a teardown. Imagine being the product manager who approved this shit
Just use veracrypt or ecrypt on any memory card. These devices don't deserve the premium they charge for on-device encryption which in this case is not even encyrypted
Does anyone actually trust these products? Always seemed like a terrible idea to me. The correct solution is to use free software cryptography on top of these things.
I've been required to use similar products due to government regulations. Personally I never trusted them, and I would have loved to take 15 minutes poking around in them, but it was the government who mandated their use for their data so ultimately it was out of my hands.
The overwhelming majority of people who use USB sticks for things are likely aware of security and the concept of encryption. But the idea of being able to use “free software cryptography on top” may as well be a trip to Mars.
Most "normies" I know think that open source cryptography is less secure because it's "open" (if they even know open source cryptography is a thing at all). No amount of trying to explain to them how more eyes on the source code generally equals safer encryption will sway most of them in the slightest.
>The correct solution is to use free software cryptography on top of these things.
If implemented correctly, "hardware" encryption can be more secure than "free software cryptography". The most obvious benefit is protection against brute-attacks, which you can't meaningfully implement with software. Not to mention added protection of biometric authentication as a second factor, compared to typing a password into a possibly untrusted machine.
“Correctly” is a big caveat. Almost no HW implementation is auditable in any way.
My baseline assumption is that even the good commercial products are only secure from a casual attacker, not TLAs. Anything safe from TLAs is what’s being sold only to them.
There's a guy with some Bitcoin that knows about a model, I'd trust that one.
Software is insecure in many scenarios because endpoint security is abysmal. Of course, a USB stick with fingerprint reader cannot be secure but there is no way around hardware-based cryptography with independent key entry if you need real security. Then again, this won't help you if the secrets are transferred to the insecure endpoint anyway.
Linked article: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/cyber-security/le...
Linked linked article: https://hackingpassion.com/lenovo-thinkplus-encrypted-usb-sd...
Linked original talk in linked linked linked article: https://youtu.be/Rv6jdnQ4YhY?t=335
(You actually have to go through https://binary.ninja/2026/10/22/breaking-more-encrypted-usb-... first :))
One more use of the classic secure password "123456" for a hidden account :-)
Were semicolons in subheadings common before AI? This subheading of the TomsHardware article just seems very artificial:
> The fingerprint only switched the USB connection on; nothing on the card was encrypted.
Not long ago it would have been an em dash.
I mean, it's a terrible subheading because it's way too long, but it's grammatically correct. It doesn't read like AI to me, why do you think it is?
Marketing wank made to sell e-waste to middle management.
Why a link to Reddit instead of the link to Tom’s Hardware?
How much hardware and even software that is supposedly used for encryption is actually backdoored?
We know that Microsoft's bitlocker had at least one backdoor. Lenovo's fingerprint USB also has backdoors.
It seems like only open source solutions actually provide encryption, like LUKS and Veracrypt. Then again, who guarantees that the executables are actually build from the source? Or that the keys aren't somehow sent over to agencies by the operating system?
TLDR, we cannot realistically trust anything in this dictatorship of mass surveillance.
>We know that Microsoft's bitlocker had at least one backdoor
Source? The closest I found was microsoft's key escrow system, but that's hardly a "backdoor" given it's publicly documented, and it's explicitly stated in no uncertain terms when you're setting it up[1]
[1] https://static0.howtogeekimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/upl...
Can anyone find a product listing where this was actually for sale? I couldn't.
https://aliexpress.ru/item/1_963163498.html
Didn't expect something this crazy but I will not trust stuff like this until I've seen a teardown. Imagine being the product manager who approved this shit
As things are, they probably don't even know there is a website called hacker news.
Just use veracrypt or ecrypt on any memory card. These devices don't deserve the premium they charge for on-device encryption which in this case is not even encyrypted
Well it's called FU after all...