Encrypting partition/disk with or without hidden partition - plausible deniability
Open source disk encryption with strong security for the Paranoid
Brought to you by:
idrassi
Menu
▾
▴
Hi there, I was wondering what is the difference between having an encrypted partition and a hidden partition.
With a file container it's obvious that there's at least some kind of data just because of the existence of the file so a hidden container within it makes sense to hide data, but what about an encrypted partition?
When Windows sees the encrypted partition it can't access it, it can't read it and can't get a metadata read of it, if you try to access it it will ask you to format it so it would look like a drive that it's simply not formatted (again) therefore possibly empty (or it might contain unusable dataas when you securely format a drive that contains gibberish data).
Of course having a hidden partition is a second layer of security, but I was wondering if a standard encrypted partition is enough for plausible deniability. Is instead a standard encrypted partition has a header or some other data that shows that "Veracrypt is/was there" then a hidden partition would make more sense as one could just show the standard encrypted partition and hide the hidden one.
What is correct and what is wrong in what I just wrote?
Thank you.
I guess another way to understand the difference would be with the answers I would get to this question:
"Why have you chosen to use the hidden partition instead of using just the normal encrypted one"?
Huh...I wasn't expecting a lack of interaction on the topic.