truecrypt.org hacked or real?

replies from the devs.

https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm
Steven Barnhart (@stevebarnhart) wrote to an eMail address he had used before and received several replies from “David.” The following snippets were taken from a twitter conversation which then took place between Steven Barnhart (@stevebarnhart) and Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green):

TrueCrypt Developer “David”: “We were happy with the audit, it didn't spark anything. We worked hard on this for 10 years, nothing lasts forever.”
Steven Barnhart: (Paraphrasing) Developer “personally” feels that fork is harmful: “The source is still available as a reference though.”
Steven Barnhart: “I asked and it was clear from the reply that "he" believes forking's harmful because only they are really familiar w/code.”
Steven Barnhart: “Also said no government contact except one time inquiring about a ‘support contract.’ ”
TrueCrypt Developer “David”: Said “Bitlocker is ‘good enough’ and Windows was original ‘goal of the project.’ ”
Quoting TrueCrypt Developer David: “There is no longer interest.”
Click to expand...
 
Energize said:
Hacked is the logical conclusion. Conspiracy theory is not.
Click to expand...

Your "logical" conclusion in this case is dumb. So dumb that some of the "conspiracy theory" conclusions you dismiss are actually more likely and meaningful.... Maybe even logical....
 
xdcx said:
Your "logical" conclusion in this case is dumb. So dumb that some of the "conspiracy theory" conclusions you dismiss are actually more likely and meaningful.... Maybe even logical....
Click to expand...

I love, non-evidence based insults, please continue with your rambling.
 
And there was me getting a beat down from some pre-teen on here because I said BitLocker was more secure than TrueCrypt :p

I wouldn't think a GCHQ dev would even bat an eyelid at this debacle, given that they themselves use BitLocker on all their devices.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCrash said:
I'd say the fact that the linked binaries used TrueCrypt's authentic signing key was pretty strong evidence against the hacking theory.
Click to expand...

At face value, hacking is a logical conclusion, it follows all the same patterns as previous hackings, to call it childish or "dumb" in favor of conspiracy theories is just bizarre.

The NSA theory is not evidence based, and given that the developers of the program were anonymous seems implausible.

At the end of the day this is a non issue, truecrypt is a great encryption tool that offers security above and beyond bitlocker and has multi os support, there's no reason to stop using it, and I can't see why future development efforts are even needed at this point, though I'm sure someone else will take over development.
 
Last edited:
Django x2 said:
And there was me getting a beat down from some pre-teen on here because I said BitLocker was more secure than TrueCrypt :p
Click to expand...

I'd fully understand why someone would argue with the point you made that Bitlocker is more secure than TrueCrypt.

What exactly are you basing that assumption on anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom