rubber-hose cryptanalysis

The group is also the origin of the term, "Rubber-hose cryptanalysis".

A properly encrypted file can only be defeated by rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

This is a reference to the rubber-hose cryptanalysis euphemism.

Deniable encryption has also been criticized because of its main inability in defending users from rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

As with rubber-hose cryptanalysis, this is technically not a form of cryptanalysis; the term is used sardonically.

It is therefore logical to assume that at least some of those countries use (or would be willing to use) some form of rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

Attempts to break a cryptosystem by deceiving or coercing people with legitimate access are not typically called side-channel attacks: see social engineering and rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

In some contexts, rubber-hose cryptanalysis may not be a viable attack because of a need to decrypt data covertly; information such as passwords may lose its value if it is known to have been compromised.

In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis (or thermorectal cryptanalysis) is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture, in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack.

Any agency wanting to read PGP messages would probably use easier means than standard cryptanalysis, e.g. rubber-hose cryptanalysis or black-bag cryptanalysis i.e. installing some form of trojan horse or keystroke logging software/hardware on the target computer to capture encrypted keyrings and their passwords.

Starting around 1997, he co-invented the Rubberhose deniable encryption system, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for the Linux operating system designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis; he originally intended the system to be used "as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field."